Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2024

[Julie S. Lalonde]

I absolutely would recommend that as a member of civil society who cannot speak in public without a security detail because of the amount of death threats I receive for my work on ending violence against women in Canada. I have had rare occasions when folks have been criminalized for their behaviour, but to your point, I absolutely agree that if a member of Parliament cannot get justice for someone who is repeatedly harassing them, how do we expect a 25-year-old single mother who's being harassed by an intimate partner—but using fake aliases online—to get justice?

Absolutely there needs to be a stronger mechanism. That to me is part of the broader conversation: Social media platforms are an industry and they need to be regulated. The fact that I can't see news on Instagram and Facebook tells me that the government has made attempts to regulate those industries, but they haven't made any headway when it comes to exactly the topic that we're talking about today.

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

I'm looking at low-hanging fruit that the government could implement in short order. I know that there's a bill before Parliament that has received a lot of controversial scrutiny. It looks at setting up a very big bureaucracy that's years out. That debate hasn't started in Parliament yet. I'll focus my remarks on things we could do in very short order within the existing Criminal Code to get justice. That would be my second thing.

I'll go to Samara in a second, but I want to mention my last recommendation. Let's say that came to pass. There was a tool by which if a behaviour online had reached a certain threshold, an order could be given to social media platforms to disclose identity. I'm not talking about for freedom; it's harassing behaviour.

The next thing is, what's to be done about it? In those scenarios, what often happens is that identity might come out. People might know it's happening, but there's this grey area on whether or not the person can continue to contact you. Oftentimes what will happen is that one account might be shut down, but then there's another. It's very easy to create a different email address. It's difficult to block people who are constantly harassing.

In that scenario, when there's a threshold of behaviour reached, as determined by the court, would you recommend that a judge could issue—I'll use a term that would have to be defined—an online restraining order that would prevent a person, almost in perpetuity if the judge so deemed it, from contacting somebody by any means online so that the behaviour stops? It would be a tool to de-escalate that behaviour from violence.

Would either of you recommend that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Witnesses, I'm sorry to rush, but just to let you know, you have about 30 seconds or so for the response.

Thank you.

[Julie S. Lalonde]

I would say, yes, we should put conditions on people who are threatening people's lives. That shouldn't be controversial.

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

Samara.

[Sabreena Delhon]

I would agree and I would add that there needs to be a public education component to this because people don't know where they're supposed to go for recourse—whether that's to the platform itself or to the police.

Education for judges would also be necessary here, in order to have the appropriate level of digital literacy to navigate this terrain.

We also want to see tech platforms have better content moderation practices, so this isn't an issue in the first place and also to reduce the number of times that someone can be anonymous online.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Damoff, the floor is yours for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

I want to thank both of the witnesses here today for the work you've done.

Ms. Lalonde, I've read your book, I follow your posts and my staff and I did your bystander training. You do amazing work and you do it in spite of the threats and harassment that you get. I just would personally like to thank you.

The mayor of Burlington, Ontario, Marianne Meed Ward, brought together all of the women who are elected in Halton region. She's been doing this for a few years. After I announced that I wasn't running again, she drafted up a pledge that was signed by, I think, 21 or 22 women in Halton region. I just want to read it.

It says:

...we, the women of H.E.R. (Halton Elected Representatives):

1. Pledge to support each other and call out abuse and harassment when we see it or experience it.

2. Call on all our allies to stand with us to support women in office and call out all forms of abuse and harassment.

3. Call on all elected officials to uphold the highest standards of conduct, focusing on respectful debate of the issues and not personal attacks.

4. Call on the relevant authorities to ensure the protection of individuals who speak out against abuse, and who experience abuse, providing them with the necessary support and resources.

Ms. Lalonde, I'm going to start with you because I feel that touches a little bit on the type of bystander training that you do.

A lot of times, as MPs, we don't call out others on what is put out into the public sphere. I'm just wondering if you can maybe comment on your thoughts on that pledge and whether you think it would be helpful. Then I'll turn to Samara.

[Julie S. Lalonde]

Yes, I think certainly it would be helpful. I mean, it's an all-hands-on-deck situation. To assume that there's some sort of silver bullet that's going to solve everything.... It's going to be a multipronged approach.

I do think that it bodes really well when you see cross-party support around these issues. To call out how another member was treated, regardless of whether or not they're a part of your team, shows that civility is important and that we have respect.

To speak to the point that was made earlier, I know that behind the cameras, folks are going out for lunch and they're having chit-chats. That's important that you're checking in with each other, but being more open and public about those gestures and normalizing that behaviour by definition encourages bystanders.

I think it shows that it's not about partisanship; it's about civility and it's about safety, fundamentally. Yes, we know women and folks of colour are predominantly being targeted in politics, but when you see the vitriol, nobody wants to join that club. Your job does not look appealing from the outside—I'm here to tell you—like, at all.

That's a problem for democracy, so I think that any attempt of cross-party calling this stuff out, even if it comes across initially as lip service, is powerful stuff. I would like to see more of it.

I'll pass it to Sabreena.

[Sabreena Delhon]

We know from our exit interviews that MPs are collegial. You are friends, you do have lunch and you do have group chats together. The public would like to see a lot more of that side of the job.

These types of pledges, Ms. Damoff, are certainly helpful, but I don't think we need to see a kind of flattening or segmenting of the experience across race or gender lines all the time. That can be useful to help us set a baseline for improvements or to get some necessary context, but I think we want to see, and the public wants to see, all MPs demonstrating collegiality and civility towards each other.

It's not just the burden of those who are experiencing the most violence to stick up for each other and protect each other. There's a role for everyone to play to demonstrate the kind of productive and collegial workspace that we know can exist, that does exist a lot of the time and that needs to be more visible to the public.

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

I forgot to set my timer, Chair. How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

That's why I'm here. You have a minute and a half.

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

Okay, thank you.

To your point, I think we did see a lot of that when Karen Vecchio was removed as chair of the status of women committee. You saw MPs from all parties—and the public, quite frankly—speaking out about the good work she had done, and you don't often see that displayed publicly, so the point was well taken.

Do you think that, as MPs, we have a responsibility to set the tone for the public? Some of this discourse is going to happen anyway, but do we have a responsibility to set the tone ourselves and set examples for the public?

[Julie S. Lalonde]

Absolutely.

[Sabreena Delhon]

Would you like me to answer that?

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

Sure.

[Sabreena Delhon]

The answer is yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Not to rush you, Ms. Delhon, but please, be as concise as you can. Thank you.

[Sabreena Delhon]

Yes, we need to see MPs modelling the behaviour. Teachers are currently embarrassed to bring their students to question period because they don't want to expose their students to that behaviour. Nobody wants that. That's not the kind of environment we want for our democracy to function in, so yes, there is a role for modelling that behaviour online and off-line.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've witnessed a courageous act in the last half hour. I don't know if you heard all the remarks. We were cited examples of misogynistic verbal violence.

I'd like to ask Ms. Lalonde the following question.

Would you please tell us what you think of the freedom of misogynistic speech that we're currently experiencing?

[Julie S. Lalonde]

Are you referring to our freedom to speak about misogyny?

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

No, this freedom has actually been transformed. It used to be something unacceptable decades ago, but now it's different, to the point where demonstrating that you're a misogynist can help you seek power, and it's something that you advertise.

[Julie S. Lalonde]

As was mentioned this morning, when we women talk about situations in which we've been harassed, we're told in certain instances that it's not true. We're often told that we should toughen up and find a way to deal with it. We're told that, if we don't have the necessary ability, confidence or endurance, this job isn't for us. However, people praise men for their courage and bravery when they discuss their mental health crises.

That's also part of the problem. As women, we're often targeted for harassment, and we've also lost the right to discuss the issue freely without being told that it's not true or that we're just too weak to do the job. It's a big part of the problem.

What often happens is that women decide not to take on the dual role of MP and woman but instead adopt only their role as an MP. I understand, but I tell them that, in the face of misogyny, they nevertheless mustn't forget that they're also women.

Even our freedom to discuss the issue is genuinely compromised now, and that's a major concern for me. Our freedom to express ourselves is at stake. Often when we talk about putting an end to harassment, people wonder what will happen to freedom of expression. Yes, but what will happen to my freedom of expression right now, if I can't discuss feminism in public without having a security officer nearby? What does that tell you?

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

Yes. Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Delhon.

I see you're very interested in politics. Why do you think this climate is tolerated, and even accepted? People ask us to change our behaviour and to be civilized, while others strongly encourage us to forge ahead.

Why is that?