Members of Parliament Feel Safer In Ottawa Than In Their Own Constituencies. Why?

The personal safety of parliamentarians has been a growing concern for years. Most parliaments have responded to individual incidents or threats by expanding and refining their security protocols and procedures. Yet, even after a decade that saw a fatal shooting spree near Parliament Hill and a weeks-long protest in downtown Ottawa (the Freedom Convoy) which resulted in a hostile climate for certain parliamentarians and staff members, MPs overwhelmingly report feeling safer on Parliament Hill than within their own constituencies. Drawing on research completed for the Parliamentary Internship Programme which explored MPs’ general perceptions of safety following the Freedom Convoy, in this article the author narrows his focus to exploring why MPs and staff tend to have more concerns about their safety in constituency offices, private residences, or in public within their constituency than when working on or around the Hill. He explains that parliamentarians and staff members belonging to specific groups have heightened concerns about security, notes the widely varying relationships they have with local police forces, and points to specific factors such as pandemic-related isolation and the growth of polarized social media as probable reasons for the alarming growth of security incidents involving parliamentarians and staff. The author also briefly reviews the situation in parliaments across the country. He concludes that more must be done systematically and proactively to enhance parliamentarians’ sense of safety and security, and to prevent fears of personal and familial safety from discouraging people from fully participating in parliamentary representative democracy.

Jonathan Ferguson

Jonathan Ferguson was a 2021-2022 Parliamentary Intern. He is currently pursuing a BCL/JD at McGill University’s Faculty of Law.

Introduction

Public officials inherently exist in the public eye, yet the COVID-19 pandemic intensified the scrutiny these officials faced. As Canadians navigated an unprecedented uprooting of their daily lives, elected representatives faced immense pressure and a surge of public anger. The longer pandemic restrictions continued, the more this backlash rose. The result was a disturbing rise in hate directed both publicly and privately toward Members of Parliament (MPs) and their staff.

This article examines this phenomenon based on research conducted in the spring of 2022, in the weeks following the “Freedom Convoy” protest that gridlocked Ottawa for over a month. Through both surveys and interviews with MPs and their staff, the research explored their degree of perceived safety and how this impacts their interactions with the public.

While the original study had a wider scope, this article focuses on one key finding: MPs and their staff felt safer in their Parliament Hill offices than in their Constituency Offices. This article explores why and concludes with new research on the security measures in place in provincial legislatures as of Autumn 2024.

Key Terms

This article employs the use of several key terms. For the purposes of this research and in the context of the constituent-representative dynamic, hate refers above all to expressed anger, expressed hostility, or threats. This consists of anything that exceeds democratic scrutiny to include threats, demands, or hateful speech about one’s person, family or personal life.

The second is the Freedom Convoy. Also described as the Trucker Convoy and Ottawa Occupation by various sources, this term refers to the month-long protest held in Ottawa, Ontario, from January 22 to February 23, 2022. Initially protesting the end of a vaccine exemption for cross-border truck drivers, the event evolved into a protest of vaccine mandates and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government more generally.

The third is disinformation. For the purposes of this paper, it should be considered as “deliberate misinformation.” In other words, if false or inaccurate information is considered misinformation, then disinformation is any misinformation which was deliberately presented to misinform, mislead or otherwise confuse those who face it.

Methodology and Data Collection

Every constituency, every MP, and every office is unique. As such, the data collection approach was simply to collect as much of it as possible while undertaking efforts to ensure geographical, linguistic, and partisan representation, as well as representation of visible minorities, women, and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. Both surveys and interviews were used to cast a wide data collection net. Additionally, the survey and interviews were designed to work together, to facilitate snowball sampling as well as to streamline the interview process by having participants reflect on the issue in advance.

Survey Promotion & Outreach

Surveys were sent on May 25, 2022, to all 338 MPs’ general inboxes, based on MPs’ publicly listed addresses found on the Our Commons website. The email in question contained links to both an MP-oriented survey and a staff-oriented survey, including both English and French versions, resulting in four survey links in total. The two surveys were very similar to one another, with a small number of variations in questions intended to gather data on experiences related to each of the respective roles. Both MPs and their staff were encouraged to complete and to share the survey. Taking into account undeliverable messages (and automated responses noting that a person was on leave or had left the position), a potential 1,664 staff members were reached.

The official survey period lasted from May 25, 2022, to June 30, 2022. Ultimately, 127 staff members and 28 Members of Parliament completed their relevant survey, representing a somewhat low response rate, but a nevertheless healthy sample size.1

MP and Staff Interviews

In addition to the surveys, 23 one-on-one interviews were conducted between May 12 and June 16, 2022.

Interviewees consisted of 13 MPs, nine staff members, and one House of Commons official. All interviews lasted between 20 to 45 minutes (apart from one MP interview which lasted 110 minutes). These interviews were semi-structured and consisted of questions built off the foundational questions present in the survey.

Together, the 13 MPs interviewed represented constituencies in seven different provinces and territories and included all recognized parties in the House of Commons. The nine staff members worked for MPs with constituencies in six different provinces, and across four parties with representation in the House of Commons.

MPs interviewed included a former party leader, a sitting deputy leader, a former minister, an MP who was formerly a minister at the provincial level, and opposition MPs who held various critic roles. Similarly, the staff interviewed held a variety of roles and represented both Hill staff and constituency staff; several high-ranking staff were interviewed including a sitting minister’s Chief of Staff.

Findings and analyses

While each MP and staff member have unique lived experiences, clear trends emerged. Many of these trends mimic one of the most noteworthy findings: most staff (and half of MPs) have felt unsafe at least once during in an interaction with the public, and a majority of both staff (54 per cent) and MPs (57 per cent) indicate they felt less safe in their profession than compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly all the remaining respondents indicate they felt no difference; a mere two out of 155 respondents (1.3 per cent) indicated they felt safer following the pandemic than prior to it.

Security in constituency offices versus security on Parliament Hill

Survey responses strongly indicate that MPs and their staff feel safer working in their Parliament Hill offices – if they have a preference. Only one out of 82 survey respondents (an MP) indicated they feel safer working in their Constituency Office than working in their Parliament Hill office. All remaining respondents indicated that if they felt as though one office was safer, it was their Hill office. This difference was particularly stark among MPs: 12 of the 14 MPs who answered this question shared that they felt safer in their Parliament Hill office than in their constituencies – even after the Freedom Convoy.

Interviewees highlighted several reasons why MPs and their staff feel safe on the Hill. Contrary to what might be assumed, the Freedom Convoy may have contributed to MPs feeling safer in Ottawa. One MP noted: “When these situations are handled well, it can increase one’s individual feeling of security.” Nearly all MPs and staff who remarked on this question during interviews highlighted the presence of the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) – which was created in in 2015, in response to the 2014 shooting on Parliament Hill. They noted it made them feel relatively safe in Ottawa compared to in their constituencies.

To that end, MPs and staff highlighted repeatedly that the lack of any coordinated or organized protection in their constituencies made them concerned for their safety should something happen in a constituency office. Inconsistent MP relationships with their local police is a notable element derived from interviews. In some jurisdictions, MP interviewees highlighted the professionalism and proactive policies of police, sharing that when they had first been elected, an officer came to their office (or residence), introduced themselves, and gave them a direct contact in the local police department should any issues ever arise.

For others, this experience was the opposite. One staff member to an MP highlighted police indifference to a threatening incident which occurred in their constituency during the Freedom Convoy. Despite reporting a physical altercation between a different staff member and a constituent inside a constituency office to local police, the staff member suggested the local police did not take the incident seriously at all. According to the staff member, local police

…do not care, and do nothing. Every time we receive a threat, they dismiss it. Not only do they not care, they make me feel like I’m wasting their time. It only takes one person to act and clearly, we don’t have security.

This office had no direct contact with local police and, after multiple incidents requiring them to contact local police, still did not have one at the time of the interview.

One MP commented that it is not surprising that constituency offices have wildly varying experiences with local police, given that the 338 constituencies overlap with approximately 91 distinct police jurisdictions. It creates a recipe for inconsistent experiences for MPs across Canada. This MP added that for an MP to have just one assigned police contact at their constituency level could build reassurance and create a feeling of greater psychological safety for that MP, even if that police contact were never called on for help.

Some staff highlighted the lack of coordination between House of Commons officials and constituency offices, including how information was locked into different silos. For example, one staff member learned that one individual (who was troubling their constituency office) had at that time already been permanently banned from entering the Parliamentary Precinct along with most federal government buildings. This staff member was frustrated that no one in Ottawa had taken measures to warn any constituency offices about this individual, particularly the staff member’s constituency office, since the individual in question was a constituent. To that end, several interviewees – particularly staff – highlighted the lack of any serious orientation to security procedures and best practices for MPs’ staff.

Staff were also asked in the survey whether they felt safe opening mail sent to constituency offices – this question was included particularly due to recent mail containing skin irritants that was sent to MP offices in Nova Scotia. While any mail sent to Hill offices is scanned by security, mail sent to constituent offices is not.2 Interestingly, staff voiced relatively little concern, with nearly two-thirds of staff saying they felt safe opening mail sent to constituency offices.3

Security in MPs’ residences

Continuing with the trend of where MPs felt safest, survey respondents were asked to comment on their feeling of safety in their homes. Although only two MPs (seven per cent of respondents) indicated a protest had taken place outside their home, 11 (40 per cent) indicated they were concerned a protest would one day occur. Additionally, nine MPs (32 per cent) indicated that outside of protests, they have had at least one constituent arrive uninvited to their home for the purpose of speaking to them directly. Seventeen MPs (61 per cent) indicated that they have taken measures to increase the security of their home since becoming an MP.

Eight MPs (29 per cent) expressed concern that someone would one day attempt to forcibly enter their home. This was a recurring trend across party lines. One interviewee added that they knew of at least one MP who, with the support of their party, worked with the Sergeant-at-Arms to have a safe room installed in their home. This followed a series of break-ins during the pandemic where a constituent repeatedly left threats written on notes inside the MP’s home. They added,

It was bad. They couldn’t sleep. Thankfully [by installing this safe room] the Sergeant-at-Arms [worked to support] this MP, who was in a much riskier threat environment.

In June 2022, the public learned that the House of Commons had begun issuing mobile panic buttons to MPs, for use anywhere in their constituency.4 These buttons – which MPs described during interviews as cellularly connected – provide an added layer of protection to MPs. One MP highlighted this as being a great example of why the House of Commons and Sergeant-at-Arms should be proactive in increasing MPs’ security, stating “I don’t necessarily request added security, but when it’s offered to me, I always consider it seriously.”

Perceiving safety

Equally important to security realities is the perception of safety. Nearly all interviewees who stated that they do not worry for their physical safety indicated that they nevertheless have felt the emotional and psychological toll made worse by the pandemic.

Understandably, to the degree that it impacts MPs ‘behaviours, MPs’ perception of safety can be seen as being equally important to actual safety. The data collected indicate this in several ways, including the fact that although nearly three-quarters of staff reported no constituent has ever attempted to harm them or a colleague, the same proportion of staff respondents were nevertheless worried that someone one day will.

Staff members on the frontlines: How MPs and their offices respond to hate

Addressing safety and perceived safety is not only about protecting democratically elected representatives; it is also an issue of workplace equity and safety. The survey results make it very clear that visible minorities, women, and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community were all more likely to respond that they feel less safe when interacting with the public on at least one occasion, than those who do not belong to one of these groups.

Regarding managing online hate, offices take various approaches. Some ignore it altogether, others track it. Some go further, hiding (or muting) certain comments on their social media pages. Some MPs have even reported directly engaging with and responding to comments by constituents they consider to be hateful (or verging on hateful); however, many ultimately abandon this practice due to how time consuming it is.

Often, MPs ask their staff to loosely track the hate they receive (especially anything that constitutes a threat). From there, some MPs occasionally request aggregate data on how much hate they have recently been receiving – this typically parallels whether MPs monitor and run their own social media pages or not. Some MPs adopt a policy of largely ignoring any hate. Conversely, at least one staff member reported that their MP keeps a “detailed list” of each and every hateful comment made, to provide as much detail as possible when relaying them to the Sergeant-at-Arms. In most cases, however, the burden falls on staff. Consequently, many staff report feeling an obligation to shield their MP from hate – especially in offices where the decision on whether to pass along certain messages is left up to the staff.

Which MPs receive more hate?

It is difficult to ascertain the exact formula behind which MPs receive more hate, but the trends present in the interviews are consistent. Factors which increased the likelihood of increased hate include: an MP’s public visibility; name recognition and the roles they held; any personal connection with a major issue in a news- cycle; and systemic misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia. Other factors mentioned by interviewees include their province, city, and the socioeconomic position of an MP’s constituents.

There was also a general feeling that government MPs (particularly Ministers) receive much more hate than those who are not, especially MPs who are visible minorities, women, or members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. However, opposition MPs belonging to these groups also receive more hate than their colleagues who do not.

MPs’ thoughts on why hate is on the rise

Hate expressed toward MPs doubled by 2022, compared to prior to the pandemic. A House of Commons official familiar with the situation, who agreed to be interviewed as part of this research, verified that the number of threats and incidents reported, the number of investigations by the RCMP, and the number of charges laid during the pandemic had doubled. While the exact numbers of incidents, investigations, and charges were not authorized for publication, the increase has been “in the hundreds.” Concerningly, this figure does not appear to have decreased since the end of the pandemic. The House of Commons’ Sergeant-At-Arms recently stated that between 2019 and 2023, the number of open files on threat behaviours increased from eight to 530 – an increase of 800 per cent.5

Interviewees offered several hypotheses as to why hate was on the rise. The first related to the role of pandemic restrictions on movement and gatherings. MPs from across partisan lines highlighted how the lack of in-person social engagement caused by these restrictions, combined with an initial increase in free time, resulted in a huge uptick in social media usage which exacerbated the spread and consumption of disinformation. It also contributed to the data feeding users’ customized social media algorithms, quite likely facilitating the delivery of more polarizing content. Increased exposure to both misinformation and disinformation, combined with what several interviewees described as “a search for community,” resulted in further polarization. Moreover, feelings of anxiety, uncertainty, and irritability caused by the pandemic may have contributed to certain isolated individuals expressing hate toward one group perceived to be responsible for their situation: MPs.

One MP highlighted how, disinformation and algorithms aside, social media and the internet also greatly facilitate the sharing of hateful messages, stating:

People just don’t realize that there is a real person [on the other side of the screen] when they’re writing; it’s [as if there is] no filter between their hands and their head. They’re just typing everything they’re thinking, [distinct from the way they would if they were speaking in person].

In terms of other pandemic-specific events, several interviewees noted that the 2021 federal election, as well as various vaccine mandates, appeared to be stressors adding to the manifestation of recent hate toward MPs. Yet several interviewees also point toward how these may not have been causes as much as they were catalysts, since many of these trends pre- dated March 2020.

One MP witnessed a steady increase in polarization and hate toward MPs since the early 2010s; this MP said it is no coincidence this rise directly coincided with the growth of social media, calling social media “the biggest reason for the decline in [MPs’] safety.”

Recent financial instability was also highlighted by several respondents as a notable stressor. One MP said:

The uncertainty of the impending financial recession [that will likely result in] a downward push on employment, means people are going to get back into desperate places. The isolation, uncertainty and doubt, and the failure of government during COVID that created so much pressure on people, I think made them perfectly susceptible to extreme views. This, coupled with the way in which social media has been completely unchecked in the spread and the algorithmic targeting of people in a predatory way.

While these were among the most noteworthy reasons highlighted by interviewees, further investigation into why hate towards MPs and their staff members has increased so drastically is an area for further research.

How are Provincial Legislatures responding?

In Autumn 2024, the Canadian Parliamentary Review distributed a survey to Clerks to ascertain what types of general security measures are in place at provincial/territorial legislatures, the Canadian House of Commons, the Senate, and in constituency offices across the country. Officials in nine provincial legislatures, one territorial legislature, the House of Commons and the Senate all responded.

Most legislatures report having an established, in-house security service. Among those that do not have this type of service, Sergeants-at-Arms tend to oversee designated Peace Officers or assume such roles themselves. One legislature without an in-house service highlighted that provincial Department of Justice security officials operate in their place for certain matters.

Of the legislatures that have their own in-house security service, the vast majority work with at least one outside police department or security agency. Virtually all in-house legislative assembly security services also offer guidance on constituency office security systematically or by request. However, only one legislature offered systematic guidance for a an elected official’s personal residence security. Some others offer this advice on a case-by-case basis (by request or based on a risk profile), while many do not offer any guidance. Most legislatures have also established a process for communicating security incidents involving elected officials/staff, in either constituency or legislative assembly offices via a single point of contact or a 24/7 hotline.

Virtually every legislature reported security incidents that required some temporary constituency office closures.

Conclusion

Threats against MPs and their staff doubled during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff and MPs are accurately perceiving this uptick. While not all worry for their physical safety, a majority of respondents indicate they felt less safe at the time of the survey than they did prior to the pandemic. This finding is also reflected in individual interviews.

While addressing physical safety concerns is important, the psychological safety of both MPs and their staff must also be considered. Polarization, disinformation, and the growing influence of social media – particularly during a period marked by increased isolation and uncertainty – paint a bleak picture for the current dynamics between MPs and those they represent.

The data are clear: more must be done to enhance the physical safety of MPs, as well as to protect and uplift their psychological safety and well-being. It is absolutely crucial that this happen systemically and above all, proactively. MPs and staff were pleased to see the measures taken in response to the 2014 shooting near Parliament Hill and following the Freedom Convoy, yet interviewees also acknowledge these situations could have seen much more tragic endings.

One individual acting on hate could cause long-lasting or even irreversible damage to our representative democracy, by further limiting the pool of people willing to offer (or reoffer) their name as a candidate for elected office. Parliamentarians, and the constituents they represent, cannot afford to wait to see if such a tragedy eventually occurs. Rather, Canadians must work to better ensure the safety of those they elect to publicly represent them.

Notes

1. Five further survey responses were received but were deemed inadmissible and removed from the dataset, since respondents answered “No” to the Opening Question.
2. Sarah Smellie. “Envelope Containing Disturbing Images and Skin Irritant Mailed to N.S. Tory MP.” Globe and Mail, February 8, 2022. URL : https://www.theglobeandmail. com/canada/article-envelope-containing-disturbing- images-and-skin-irritant-mailed-to-ns/.
3. It is possible, however, that Hill staff may have missed that this question pertains to mail sent to constituent offices specifically.
4. Richard Raycraft. “MPs Describe Threats, Safety Fears as They’re Issued Panic Buttons.” CBC News. CBC/ Radio Canada, June 22, 2022. URL : https://www.cbc. ca/news/politics/mp-threats-safety-panic-buttons- 1.6496243?cmp=newsletter_CBC+News+Politics+Headli nes_1636_580495
5. Peter Zimonjic. “Harassment of MPs spiked almost 800% in 5 years, says House sergeant-at-arms.” CBC News, May 28, 2024. URL: https://www.cbc.ca/news/ politics/threats-harassment-mps-spike-1.7217040

Who feels unsafe?

In response to whether they “had ever felt unsafe” during an interaction with a constituent or member of the public,

• Staff identifying as members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community were 76 per cent more likely to answer yes than those who identified they did not.
• Staff members identifying as female were 43 per cent more likely to answer yes than those who identified as male.
• Staff members identifying as belonging to a visible minority were 27 per cent more likely to answer yes than those who identified they did not.