Thank you, MP Barrett. It's good to see you in this setting. I usually see you in our home community.
I think it's twofold. We have a culture issue. Until very recently, Equal Voice was part of a conversation where women used to accept that the price of being in politics, and being under-represented in politics, was that you would be the target of some online hating and bullying. That just went along with the job.
What I think we've seen recently amongst all parties in most legislatures is that we are at a point where we think this is unacceptable and that no person's rights, regardless of their gender, their cultural background, or their sexual orientation, should be subject to online hate, or analogous experiences of hate, as a consequence of basic identity considerations.
What's good is that the conversation has evolved. What's challenging—and it's so great that this committee is taking on this work—is the reporting of these incidents. I recognize that social media companies are doing better at giving users control over how online hate is received. I always give this example. In my own recent election campaign, I ran a Facebook page, which is pretty common for a candidate at any level of government. I had far more control than I even understood.
While I was being trolled—minimally, by the way—I actually had a remarkably positive experience as a candidate, not just because I won but also because the dialogue was largely respectful online and offline. I was putting a lot of focus on the online aspect. I had control when trolling began. These were things we would consider to be out of order in any regular political campaign. My status as a mother was being challenged. They said I couldn't be a mayor and a parent and three children. Some of these assertions were really ridiculous. They started to go in a direction that was challenging.
Social media, Facebook in particular, gave me control over my platform. That was super- important—not for censoring but to take out comments that were unwarranted. It's a very frustrating experience for elected women to go beyond that mechanism, because reporting is very challenging. Social media companies are getting better at responding, but there is no standard.
I think you've heard around this table that we need a standard. Whether it's a digital charter or a regulatory framework that stipulates how and when social media companies can take action, I think a standard is incredibly important. We also know that through the Canadian Human Rights Commission we have lots of mechanisms. The bar to demonstrate and prove hate language is now criminal. We have other mechanisms that Canadians would not have been able to utilize in the past. There's a loss there in terms of how you ultimately take it on.
We were quite involved in Newfoundland's finance minister's journey as a woman who was the target of online hate. At the end of the day, as you might know, she left politics maybe earlier than expected. Part of that, or all of that, was because she experienced heightened degrees of frustration owing to excessive bullying and hate language directed her way, not because of policy but because of body size, gender, and familial status, which in the end made it untenable for her to serve in public life.
Certainly, I think the reporting mechanisms have to be easier. The responsiveness has to be better. I think we need to set a standard in Canada, and that's what's really missing.