Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 30th, 2024

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

Yes. Actually, Julie Lalonde is a witness in the next panel. I think she'd be a good person to ask those questions of. She has a lot of experience on that.

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

Thank you.

Again, the reason that I'm looking at objective solutions is that I could sit here and talk about members of the Liberal party I've had to block on social media because they have sent the hordes after me. I just think that if we get into a situation where we are censoring speech, particularly where we are saying that the government's position is the positive position that needs to be uploaded and that criticism of the government is downgraded in a legitimate situation, we're doing democracy a disservice.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with what you, I and others have received. I'm just trying to look at objective solutions. Would you recommend, in that scenario, that we look at strengthening...or closing loopholes that are in existing criminal justice laws, which prevent law enforcement from intervening at early stages and allows this behaviour to escalate into hate speech, threats of violence or actual violence?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, I've let that question go about 60 seconds over, so please give a quick response. I'm sorry to rush.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Well, Ms. Damoff, that was exemplary in terms of quickness. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Erskine-Smith, we turn the floor over to you for five minutes.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pam, thank you for your testimony. The comments you read out are absolutely shameful.

I guess where it might be more constructive to spend time is when it comes to member-versus-member harassment. We obviously have a code for sexual harassment. There's no place for that, and that code is rightly in place.

At the same time, though, we have rules in the chamber related to privilege, where we wouldn't have a defamation action that could be brought, for example, because of comments spoken in the House of Commons. We privilege free speech of members in representing their constituents to a very high degree.

How do you see balancing that idea of privilege and the ability to voice concerns and, in some cases, voice them in such a problematic way that it might rise to defamation in the House but is not actionable? How do you see squaring that with a members' code of conduct vis-à-vis members around harassment?

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

I'll start. Thank you for that question, I really appreciate it.

As I said in my opening remarks, members should not be allowed to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. The code of conduct for members of Parliament is very clear about how we should be conducting ourselves, what we should be allowed to say in the House or not. We have the wherewithal, we have the freedom to be able to represent our constituents and to raise the voices that our constituents need us to raise; but at the same time, I think strengthening or perhaps really clarifying that rule that you cannot do indirectly what you can't do directly would be a good starting point. As members have suggested as well, so would be creating a clear code of conduct online and members' social media.

Look, the thing is that we are and should be held to a higher standard. We need to make sure that our actions are parliamentary. I think there's always that gut check, right, when you know that what you've done is not parliamentary. I know that I have—and I admit to it—deleted tweets that I have found afterwards I wasn't too comfortable with. I think, one, we need to check ourselves. Two, if we can't check ourselves, we need to clarify the code of conduct for members of Parliament.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Pam, do you have anything else you want to add?

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

Nothing else. That's fine, Nate—through you, Chair, sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You have about two minutes left, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks.

This place is a circus at the best of times, and it can be even more of a circus when things go on too long, when we haven't had constituency weeks and we enter June and all that.

Look at what's happening to the Speaker right now. There are certain rules that then, you know, people stand on, and they turn those rules into an even greater circus. Do you worry at all that if there's a harassment policy in place, that in turn might become just another procedural tool in some ways for a member to go at another member and to say, “You said this, and I'm going to say it's harassment,” and turn it into a circus in its own right?

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

That's a good question.

There are 338 of us in this House. We are so privileged to be here. Our examples set the tone for every single Canadian. When Canadians—and I worry about young people in particular—look at what is going on right now, I worry that they look at all of it and throw up their hands and say, “One is as bad as the other. I don't want anything to do with it.” Whether or not a code of conduct could be weaponized, I think we need to look at how we can do it. The same could be said for sexual harassment between members, and we managed to do something on that. I do think there's a way that it can be done that is not going to be weaponized.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I appreciate it, thanks. Honestly, to have gone through what you two have.... Every member of Parliament deals with different elements of it, but I have never even come close to experiencing anything remotely close to what you two have gone through. It's outrageous that anyone would have to listen to, read and experience the things you have experienced, so thanks for being here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

Colleagues, before we move on, I do note that we are running a little bit behind schedule. I would just encourage members to be in touch with their staff or their respective whip's offices in the event that they need to be somewhere else. Because we still have a third panel, we're probably going to end up going 15 or 20 minutes over time today. I wanted to intervene very quickly to give you the courtesy of having some time to address that.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief.

First of all, I'm going to take the time to say what I have to say calmly. I hope that, given all the courage, honesty and candour people have shown, what just happened here today won't be abused as a way to spark a partisan movement a week from now. If that's the case, I'll have understood that the situation is even worse than I had imagined. I hope that my colleagues will read the evidence and that those who think that the shoe fits will wear it. We may manage to make a minor change today.

I realize I may have worded my question poorly earlier. I essentially wanted to know how far harassment, with our actions and attitude, goes. The conclusion I'm coming to today is that things are serious and action is urgently needed.

I hear talk about the possibility of striking an impartial subcommittee. Some will respond by saying that it will still be partisan. If anyone can say he or she isn't seeking power, then we can be sure it will be neutral in order to be exemplary. I think that's the complete opposite of what we should do.

Lastly, I have a single question for my colleague Ms. Damoff.

Can anyone imagine a male harassment victim doing what you dared to do on May 1, which was to resign, when you were unable to tolerate it all?

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

You actually give me the opportunity to talk about a double standard that I've seen.

When I brought this up at the ethics committee, I was called a pearl-clutcher and labelled as being hysterical, and told that it was the price to pay for being a federally elected official.

Then earlier this month, a former Conservative MP testified and talked about the way he got harassed online, and he was called a hero by his Conservative colleagues.

It's disheartening that women who speak out—and I'm sure my friend and colleague here has had the same experience—are called pearl-clutchers. Sean Fraser has told me he doesn't experience anything near to what I've experienced online since I first got elected.

There is a difference in the way that women and men are treated, and how they respond to the type of comments and abuse we get.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much for the extra time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes and change. It's over to you.

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

Thank you.

There is absolutely a double standard, and it is interesting.

I'm often told that you have to have a thick skin to work in Parliament, but that you signed up for it. I'm sure that we all agree that you did not sign up for this.

You talked a lot about the impacts on your staff. I know that we rely upon them so much, and they are so integral to all the work we do, and they are incredible. I worry about mine, and I worry about the supports that we have in place through administration.

Have you put your minds to any additional supports that you would like to see for your staff, who have to deal with a lot of this as well?

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

Thanks for that question.

I don't think our staff get enough credit for the work they do. None of us in this room could do the work we do without the staff who support us.

I sent my speech to a former staffer to read over last night. When she responded, the individual said, “Thank you for saying all of this. It made my heart jump a bit with anxiety as I feel it again, even though I left some time ago”.

It was traumatizing, and it is traumatizing for staff, especially with repeated phone calls into the community office.

I'm sure you get that in London as well.

As Ms. Khalid was saying, reading through the emails, I don't think there's enough support for them. I think the House of Commons has done a lot, and I know they're aware of the issue. They've done de-escalation training for staff so they hopefully have the tools to be able to de-escalate these calls, but it's pretty intimidating.

Most of our staff are young people. It's pretty intimidating, especially for the ones on the front line in the community, to be faced with this at the door of your office or on the phone, because a lot of times, these people who call, they call repeatedly. They hide their phone numbers so you don't know who's calling.

I've explicitly said not to answer phone calls from outside our area code, because a lot of times, those calls are abusive, and quite frankly, if someone lives in a different area code, they're likely not my constituent, and if they are, they can leave a message.

However, I think our staff are really underlooked in what happens in our offices.

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

Can I just very quickly add to that?

Everything that Ms. Damoff said is accurate. I would make a very quick plug: Our staff don't get paid enough to deal with the things they deal with. If you guys can help us in paying our staff better wages, I think we'd be able to help support them a lot better as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much to everybody.

Ms. Ferreri, the floor will be yours for five minutes.

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

Thanks.

Thank you for having me here today. Thank you to our two witnesses.

It is certainly a story to be a person in politics, and then add the word "woman" in front of it, it's different. I appreciate the testimony.

I've always joked. I said, imagine we started a “mean tweets”, like Jimmy Kimmel used to do, and we all, as MPs, from every party, just read them.

One of the things that popped up, and my colleague really eloquently positioned this, is about legitimate criticism versus harassment. I think there's a lot around that because it is our job, as she mentioned, in opposition, to ensure that we are holding that line and that people don't feel heard.

One of the things I would ask you about is that a lot of the messages you read in particular, Pam, were pretty graphic ones from the public, not from other members. Do you think those people who write those things are doing okay?

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

Through you, Chair, they were sent to me as a result of the action of another member of Parliament. It wasn't anything I had done. It wasn't necessarily policy related.

In answer to your question, though, I have found that it's gotten much worse since the pandemic. I do think that a lot of people are struggling with their mental health and are struggling in dealing with threats, whether to their health or to their safety, or from what's going on around the world.

I do think there are a lot of people.... I also want to say, too, that the vast majority of Canadians are good and decent people who do not treat other people in this way, but it's becoming more and more prevalent in society.