Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2024

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

I think so, and I think what people say online versus what they say to your face is very different. They're very different things.

Just to retrace what you said, are you saying that those messages you read into the record today were directly linked to an MP's comments, or were they just random messages to you?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Look, I have had, over my almost nine years as an MP, thousands of just horrific messages. Most of the examples I gave, though, were the result of the actions of an MP posting something, which then resulted in a flood of responses that were directly related to what that individual had posted.

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

Thank you.

I think sometimes, too, it is important to say “policies”. I think sometimes there are policies that make people feel unheard or unseen. I'm not excusing it.

Listen, I'm on the same end. I have pressed criminal charges against people who have threatened to kill me as well, but to your point, if people don't feel heard, I think that is a piece of the puzzle. Ms. Rempel Garner touched on this greatly and I would suggest that recommendation.

The biggest thing I am told is nobody answers a question in question period. You have the worst food insecurity in history, you have housing, you have a mental health crisis, you have suicide rates and you have all of these things, and I don't justify people's hateful behaviour, but there's always a reason somebody is doing what they are doing.

On a bigger scale than when we look at raising our children and telling them, “You can't say that to somebody's face, so don't say it online,” and when we're making these recommendations, I think it is great to go back to the criminal piece of it.

One of the things that has come up a lot in my work is the Victims Bill of Rights. A lot of people feel that criminals have more rights in this country than victims. In 2020, there was an ask by the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime for a parliamentary review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights citing the top four issues that needed to be addressed, and it has never been addressed. It has never happened.

I guess my question to you is twofold. Where do you see that? Should that be re-examined? Would you suggest something like that as well?

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I will share with you that, a couple of months ago, MP Michael Barrett started a Facebook Live in which he called me and my colleague corrupt and released our email addresses, etc., which led to a whole bunch of hate coming towards me—people calling, people emailing me on social media, etc. However, there was this one lady, Peggy, who drove two hours to my constituency office, and she was very upset and was asking me why I was a corrupt individual, why I was shutting down committees, why I was not allowing investigations to happen and why I thought it was okay for us to do X, Y or Z.

I sat down with her. We had a conversation for about half an hour, and she gave me the biggest hug when she left. To me, that really proves a point. When I talk about the politics of agitation, it is that spreading or framing of an issue in a way that really does agitate people and makes them anxious. It adds an extra layer to whatever they are dealing with on a daily basis as it is, so I think that we as members of Parliament have a responsibility to be more fair in how we engage on social media.

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

Sorry. Just to clarify that, do you think the Victims Bill of Rights needs to be amended?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

On that, I have a meeting with the ombudsman for victims of crime. I have met with the office in the past. They reminded me that most people who are in jail are also victims of abuse, so I think that with any of our policies, whether it's the Victims Bill of Rights or the several other things that we deal with, it's always a good thing to take a look at them, but we need to bear in mind.... If you've met with the ombudsperson, you will know they have a very balanced approach to victims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Ms. Damoff.

The last intervention for this panel will be yours, Ms. Romanado, for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to go back to something you said, MP Damoff, with respect to already having a system in place with respect to the code of conduct for members, dealing with sexual harassment. In that code of conduct, there's a mechanism. It is not political parties that are involved. This is literally professionals with the human resources office who deal with complaints and mediation, and so on and so forth. Therefore, we know a model already exists. As it was indicated in appendix A of the workplace harassment policy, which unfortunately doesn't apply between MPs, it gives examples of behaviours that can be considered harassment.

Would you say that it would be pretty easy for us to implement not only the harassment policy between MPs because we already have a model in which complaints can be brought forward, but also an example of lists of behaviours that would not be acceptable? I also think it would be helpful—and I'd like your opinion on this—to have mediation or reconciliation.

For instance, if there is a member who is being targeted online by another member, then that indirectly gets the harassment going. If there was a mechanism where you could invite that member of Parliament to a meeting with a professional, with a mediation officer, to say that you're not sure if they realize that what they're doing is causing a lot of hurt, and it's creating this mass of hate and so on.

There is no mechanism, and we have a very adversarial job that we already do. Would you recommend that maybe we have systems in place so that we can actually bring our colleagues together to say that this behaviour is not acceptable, and they need to help and to stop it? What would you recommend? I'm trying to talk about not the indirect hate, but how can we prevent getting there?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I think the mechanism you've described would be helpful. I hate to say that anything is easy to do, but, yes. I do think that it would be helpful.

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

With respect to the impact on families, my family looks at my page, and I try to put a lot of positive things out. I don't do the personal attacks. I just really put out a lot of positive stuff. However, when I get the comments, I know my dad would call and say, Sherry, do they even know you? You're such a nice person. Why are people saying that about you?

It's very hurtful for our families to see that. I have people come up to me to say that they have seen some of the stuff people write and wonder if people even know me. They say that I'm a nice person. I don't think people realize that when that's happening, our families are affected as well.

When you're having that conversation about whether you're going to run again or whether you're going to continue doing what you're doing, a lot of times, the family is questioning if we really want to keep putting up with that. It impacts our ability to do what we do.

I self-regulate in the chamber now. There are times when I want to get up and ask a question, and I think, you know, I'm not going to because it's just going to invite the hate. My privilege is actually being taken away because I self-regulate. I decide what parts of the debate I'm going to participate in because I just don't want to invite it.

Would you say that's something that's happening as well?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure my son is watching right now. He's 34 years old. He's not a little kid. I know that what happens to me here bothers him a lot more than it bothers me. It has an impact on him and his family. I worry about our family's safety. I don't have young kids living at home anymore, but I do worry about MPs who have young kids and who are subjected to abuse.

In 2018, my son called out someone who attacked me online in The Oakville Beaver, our local newspaper. It doesn't really exist anymore, but it did a story about the bullying of MPs in politics. I do know that it has a huge impact on our families, and that's across party lines.

It also weighs into what we do and don't do. I actually sent him my speech last night, and then I asked him not to read it because I figured it would be better if he only heard it once and didn't read it ahead of time. I think it's harder on our families than it is for us as individuals. I think that you're correct; it does impact what we do and don't do in the House in anticipation of what might happen out in the real world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Damoff.

Colleagues, this brings us to the end of the second panel.

I do just want to take a moment. As I look around the table and online, I want to thank Ms. Rempel Garner, Ferreri, Mathyssen, Khalid, Damoff, Romanado and Gaudreau in particular because I do appreciate that life in politics, as difficult as it is, is certainly more difficult for women. I think we've heard that exemplified here today in some brave and courageous testimony. I can't imagine it was easy to share on all sides of the aisle. I know that many of us men who are subject to certain things are never diminished as a result of our gender. That is something that is very specific to our female colleagues, and I do—

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

On a point of order for that, I'd just like to say, for the record, that I don't feel like my experience has been diminished by my gender. I just want to put that on the record.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That's fair enough. I'm sorry, Ms. Rempel Garner. I meant to say that on our behalf.

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

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, we're going to suspend briefly, and we are then going to go into our final panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, we're going to start again.

I do acknowledge that we have gone overtime. I did my best to be fair to all sides with the amount of speaking time they got. Having said that, I appreciate that it can be challenging to our respective schedules when we go further than we intend.

What I propose—and I'm looking around the room to make sure there is some agreement to this—is that we get a full round of questioning in and then evaluate where we are at the end of that round in terms of what members' responsibilities may be.

It's always possible, of course, for me and some of the members to stick around as well, acknowledging that there won't be voting on certain procedures or anything, but that we have an informal part of the meeting that can continue with witnesses. We can discuss that when we get there, but I do want to try to be respectful to everybody's schedule.

Let's get going and then folks are welcome to come and talk to me at the outset here and see where they want to go.

With that, I would like to welcome the witnesses on our next panel.

I would like to welcome to the committee today Julie Lalonde, who is a public educator, and Sabreena Delhon, the chief executive officer of the Samara Centre for Democracy.

Ms. Lalonde, I'm going to go to you first for five minutes for an opening statement and then to Ms. Delhon for five minutes for hers. Then we're going to get into our line of questioning.

The floor is over to you, Ms. Lalonde.

[Julie S. Lalonde, Public Educator, As an Individual]

Wonderful. Thank you.

I'm delighted that Samara was added to the list. Their work is something I was going to reference because they do incredibly important work.

Thank you for the invitation.

My name is Julie S. Lalonde and I have been working to end gender-based violence in Canada for over 20 years. I have worked directly with victims as a counsellor in sexual assault centres, have crafted policies and procedures for various organizations and trained thousands and thousands of Canadians on how to create safer communities through bystander intervention. I’ve never been a staffer or worked in politics but I have trained MPs, MPPs, staffers and interns from across parties at the provincial and federal level.

What I want to share with you today are the common concerns that I've received and heard from staff and interns over the years of doing those trainings.

The primary concern is around defining the actual issues at hand. I observed Tuesday's meeting, and I was here this morning, and I see that it is a continuing conversation happening here.

If I said to you, “The solution to harassment is orange,” we could all nod our heads and say, “Great, that sounds like an awesome plan” and leave here ready to tackle the problem, but the issue is that half of you were thinking of the fruit and the other half were thinking of the colour, but all of you were convinced that you were heading in the right direction and the same direction.

In reading the policy and the code of conduct and in listening to the previous committee meetings, as I said, there seems to remain much confusion about what exactly constitutes harassment and what to do if it happens to you or someone you work with. This brings me to the second common concern I hear, primarily from staffers and interns, which is, “Okay, now what?”

There remains much confusion as to whom exactly to report harassment to, what confidentiality looks like in that process, what accountability looks like in that process, etc. Knowledge is power, and we cannot expect people to come forward as targets of harassment or as bystanders—and I will emphasize that several times over, the importance of bystanders in this conversation—if they're in the dark on what happens next.

The House of Commons needs what is referred to as a "no-wrong-door policy", which encourages people to disclose to anyone they trust to figure out how to handle feelings of unsafety or concern.

Finally, I've heard much frustration from members, staffers and interns that there remains a failure to recognize 21st century realities—and this has been mentioned quite a few times. What happens online does matter. If you were to bank somewhere where you could not do online banking, you would be furious. To pretend that what happens on the Internet is not real is naive in 2024.

Coordinated mob attacks, whether they are via bots or individuals, do impact someone's ability to do their job. Those on the front lines of managing social media—as was referenced earlier today—those who are answering the emails and the phone calls and who are behind your Twitter accounts and Facebook accounts need to be protected and supported in their difficult roles.

The work members and their staffers do is also incredibly mobile and often changes day to day, and so there needs to be an understanding written into policies and procedures that all harassment is unacceptable, whether it happens in the House, at the office or at a community meet-and-greet barbecue. We are living in increasingly volatile times, and that needs to be reflected in your policies and your work here.

Finally, I'm happy to speak on best practices for violence prevention and culture change—that is my area of expertise—but most importantly, I want to convey the urgency in getting this conversation right. We all have the right to a safe and equitable workplace, but members of Parliament also set an example for Canadians. Getting it right here sends a message that civility matters, that we can disagree with each other without veering into personal attack and that conflicts can be resolved in a way where everyone is able to move forward. Creating a safer House of Commons means creating a more democratic House of Commons, and that benefits all of us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lalonde.

Ms. Delhon, we'll go to you for up to five minutes for an opening statement.

[Sabreena Delhon, Chief Executive Officer, Samara Centre for Democracy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to speak with the committee today.

My name is Sabreena Delhon, and I'm the CEO of the Samara Centre for Democracy, which is a non-partisan charity dedicated to making Canada's democratic culture more accessible, responsive and inclusive.

We have been studying the lived experience of elected officials for over 15 years through our MP exit interview project, which has produced several publications and two podcasts. This material serves as a key resource for aspiring politicians. It is used by high school and post-secondary educators across the country to teach about active citizenship, and it has received extensive media attention. Over 160 exit interviews have been conducted with former members of Parliament since 2008. Today, I'll be drawing on our most recent cohort of interviews to guide potential changes to the workplace harassment and violence prevention policy.

In these interviews, former MPs across parties have expressed concerns that their conditions of work create significant barriers to achieving a Parliament that is representative of Canadian society. They call for modernization in the form of more flexibility, stronger HR policies and formalized protocols to prevent harassment. Our interviewees feel that these changes are crucial in order to attract and to retain parliamentarians. This was a defining theme in this group, more so than in previous cohorts. MPs repeatedly shared concerns that a failure to improve Parliament as a workplace would undermine the faith and the trust that Canadians have in this institution.

The way forward isn't through policies alone, but through the formation of a healthy culture that can reverse this normalization of an increasingly hostile environment online and off-line.

This requires considering the following questions. What are the rewards for good behaviour? How are parties incentivized to contribute to civility and collegiality? What other healthy boundaries can be put into place to foster a more productive condition of work?

I'll turn now to specific feedback about the working conditions from former MPs. Encountering racialized comments were identified by interviewees as a significant risk when serving in the House of Commons. This problem was compounded by the absence of mechanisms to address these instances, which brought forth a sense of alienation.

In terms of gender equity, harassment of younger women MPs was brought up as a point of concern amongst a number of our interviewees, both men and women. Some interviewees spoke of the negative effects of harassment or bullying during question period, which they connected to the broader harassment and silencing of women and under-represented groups in the political arena.

The effect of online harassment of MPs was also a recurring theme. Our interviewees explained how harassment affected their mental health and extended to their families. This is a particular concern from those that are from minoritized communities who receive a high volume of online abuse.

Recently, we've seen numerous politicians in all orders of government leave the political arena because of hate and harassment that came to define their job. This isn't just about having a thick skin or being more resilient. In our interviews, the women we spoke with frequently mentioned receiving death threats and struggling to get the appropriate security that they required.

If safer working conditions aren't put into place, then the leaders that we need—the leaders that reflect Canada's diverse communities—won't stay, or they'll stop stepping forward altogether. The context that I've outlined here takes a significant toll on staff and has a chilling effect on public engagement. People are pushed away from democratic engagement instead of being drawn in.

None of our interviewees regret devoting years to public service, and they share their stories with us to help evolve life in Parliament. In this period of global democratic backsliding, it's never been more urgent to secure healthy conditions of civic engagement.

We're willing to partner to support a safer and more inclusive workplace, should the committee see a role for us.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Delhon. We appreciate the opening statement.

Ms. Rempel Garner, the first round of questioning will go to you, for six minutes.

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

I think what we should be trying to do is drive to recommendations that effect change. One of the frustrations I've had over the course of my hot-minute career is the weekly request for an interview: How do you feel about being a woman in politics, blah blah blah? I have yet to have an interview to respond to substantive changes that would improve some of these issues, so I'd like to go to recommendations.

The CBC reported about two weeks ago that the RCMP was recommending stronger measures to protect members of Parliament from online harassment and abuse. My reaction was that if you can't protect me, how can you protect other Canadian women? We know that online harassment is a behaviour that escalates into physical violence. It creates anxiety, lack of productivity, impacts on the family and so on. I'd like to focus recommendations on ways to prevent that writ large.

There are three recommendations that I'd like the committee to consider. The first is that the loophole, the grey area under Canada's current intimate image distribution laws that does not explicitly include deepfakes, be closed, and that the language be put in the Criminal Code, particularly ahead of the next federal election.

Would you both agree with that recommendation?

[Julie S. Lalonde]

Absolutely. I would absolutely agree with that.

[Sabreena Delhon]

Yes.

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

Okay.

The next thing I'd like to see concerns two gaps. First of all, oftentimes this type of harassment comes from anonymous sources. I'm not talking about a singular mean tweet objecting to a policy position or even calling me a name. It is repetitive harassment from the same person. Oftentimes, as was mentioned by one of the previous witnesses, not just for MPs but for all women there will be a time when law enforcement will say,"Well, I'm not sure what we can do about that". To the point that Ms. Lalonde made, it's very difficult to even know where to call when you are being harassed by somebody online.

I would like to recommend, or I would like to get your position on recommending, that in instances of clear repeated harassment—defining it along the lines of what constitutes criminal harassment—a judge could issue an order to social media companies to provide the identity of a person so that justice could be followed out. Would you recommend that?