海角社区官网

Sergeant-at-Arms Pat McDonell said there is a “significant” rise in harassment of elected officials, including online threats and indirect 鈥渢hreat behaviour鈥� that is intimidating but may not cross a criminal threshold because it is not a direct threat to someone鈥檚 personal safety.

He described it as a problem that is increasingly harder to track, although Commons security officials work with the RCMP and have agreements with 61 police forces to respond where needed.

It鈥檚 up to social media platforms to decide if comments violate the companies鈥� own guidelines for malicious or harassing threats, McDonell said. And parliamentary security officials used to have better success getting threatening remarks or harassing comments taken down.

But with so many complaints 鈥� and in the case of X, formerly known as Twitter, after the company was bought by Elon Musk, many of the individuals who worked with Canadian security officials were laid off 鈥斅犫�渨e鈥檙e not having much luck,” he admitted.

鈥淚t’s come to the point where we are bulk-filing the harassment (posts). There’s just so much of it. And the social media platforms are either not taking our calls or taking our calls and saying, 鈥榶es, we’ll look into it,鈥欌�� he said, but in many cases the posts are not removed.

Liberal MP Pam Damoff, who last month revealed she will not run for re-election because she feels unsafe on the job due to 鈥渢hreats and misogyny,鈥� put some of the blame on the behaviour of other unnamed MPs.

Damoff said too often Opposition MPs are chasing clips to post to social media, aggressively questioning witnesses in committees, and making their own reckless comments on social media that then drive bad behaviour by others.

During parliamentary study of the Liberals鈥� gun control laws last year, she said, there were death threats made to witnesses who were 鈥渘on-partisan members of the public service who appeared, and the chair of the committee had to warn the Conservative members to tone down 鈥� the way they were questioning these officials because it was directly impacting their safety.鈥�

Damoff said the toxic environment is making it harder to hire and retain political staff who have to comb through and respond to some of the commentary.

And after her colleague read the current definition of harassment in the Canada Labour Code, which includes cyberbullying or spreading of malicious rumours, Damoff asked the House law clerk, 鈥渟hould that not apply to MPs and our behaviour?鈥�

Right now, said Commons clerk Eric Janse, there are an array of guidelines governing MPs as employers of political staff, and a code of conduct on sexual harassment between MPs, but there is no law or code of conduct that governs non-sexual harassment between members of Parliament.

It falls to the Speaker of the House of Commons, or the chairperson of any committee, to enforce guidelines on decorum that lawmakers have agreed upon, and to ensure MP behaviour does not get out of hand.

Conservative MP Blaine Calkins said it is a 鈥渃hallenge鈥� to draft new rules on member-to-member harassment “because the House is designed to be adversarial.鈥�

鈥淭hat鈥檚 the nature of our democracy,” he said. “How do we rationalize what is feeling uncomfortable through harassment or feeling uncomfortable because you’ve just got political pressure put on you in an adversarial system?鈥�

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner, who said hers was the first case in Canada where a court in 2016 convicted an individual for criminal harassment and threats posted on what was then-Twitter, urged the committee members to ensure that any recommendations are 鈥渕ade on legitimate grounds, not as a way to litigate partisanship.鈥�

Liberals, Bloc Qu茅b茅cois and NDP MPs insisted there should be a way to balance both and respect the rights and “privileges” of MPs to be free from intimidation.

鈥淲e should absolutely be providing feedback to improve legislation,” said Liberal MP Sherry Romanado. “But when it comes to sometimes the civility in the House, when it comes to personal attacks, when that kind of behaviour then spills into social media so that a member now is refraining from either going to the chamber or participating in debate, or self regulating what they say out of fear of all of that happening, now we’re into (questions of parliamentary) privilege.鈥�

Speaker Greg Fergus聽鈥� who is at the centre of a bitter debate in Parliament about whether he is a fair arbiter or is overly partisan聽鈥� told the committee he often questions whether the conduct between MPs would be acceptable “in any other workplace. I think the answer is no.”

But Fergus added Parliament is “not like any other workplace,” and that it is ultimately up聽to MPs to decide where to draw the line.聽

Last month, all parties on the Board of Internal Economy, the executive governing committee for the Commons, agreed to a substantial budget increase to boost security for MPs and their families, allocating $7.7 million this year, increasing to $8.4 million next year and beyond.

The money聽鈥� to be sought through supplementary budget requests this year and in the main budget estimates in future聽鈥� will go to expand the 鈥渕obile duress鈥� program (which provides panic buttons or emergency alarms to MPs and members of their family); to increase open-source intelligence operations; to conduct better risk management and investigations; to enhance residential and constituency office security; and to cover the cost of private security for events related to their parliamentary functions that MPs attend outside the parliamentary precinct. It will also be used to improve parliamentary accreditation services and the visitor registration program.