Revelations and denunciations of threats perpetrated against elected officials, all levels of government combined, may have multiplied and followed one another in recent years, but the figures revealed to this effect by the sergeant-at-arms of the Federal Parliament do not are no less frightening. Their furious leap, in the space of barely five years, once again confirms a worrying trend for the well-being of our democracy. Although it is illusory to hope that citizens will pull themselves together and finally demonstrate civility in their exchanges and the expression of their grievances, legislative correctives such as Bill 57 of the government of Quebec, even amended, are not not the right solution either.
Between 2019 and 2023, cases of harassment of federal elected officials — in the virtual sphere, but also during very real public events — exploded by 800%, Sergeant-at-Arms Patrick McDonell revealed to the parliamentary committee last week. Worse still: the number of complaints about threatening behavior which were studied by his team, then deemed worrying to the point of being transferred to the police authorities, jumped over the same period from 8 to 530!
Federal deputies were equipped with panic buttons; their homes equipped, on request, with surveillance cameras. The office of the Sergeant at Arms regularly sends them warnings during coordinated demonstrations such as those against the carbon tax in early May, ordering the targeted elected officials to lock the doors of their constituency offices, to avoid any interaction with the demonstrators and to call 9-1-1 if necessary.
This is a state of affairs that is as distressing as it is alarming. Should we really be surprised that parliamentarians announce their withdrawal from public life? That nearly 1 in 10 municipal elected officials cut their mandate short?
On the provincial political scene, the number of reports of threatening remarks or threats against elected officials to the Sûreté du Québec remained approximately stable, even showing a slight decline — from 286 in 2020 to 206 in 2020. last year. A number which nevertheless remains far too high.
Because even when elected officials brave the storm and remain in office in this toxic climate, some refrain from speaking out on more contentious issues. Witnesses refuse to share their expertise in committee or in a parliamentary commission, for fear of in turn being subjected to the gall of surly citizens. It is also these essential contributions to the public debate and, above all, to the development of our public policies which are thus muzzled.
The antidote to this drift must, however, not take the form of an excessive legislative arsenal. The necessary preservation of political participation cannot be done at the expense of protecting equally essential citizen participation.
However, these are the fears raised by Bill 57 aimed at protecting municipal and Quebec elected officials, which should be adopted by the end of the parliamentary session on Friday. Amendments have clarified that its application must be done “without restricting the right of any person to participate in debates” and in “respect for the democratic values of Quebec”, but it remains that citizens will in the future have to justify that their criticisms and their challenges do not hinder the work of elected officials “unduly” or in an “abusive” manner.
Recurring harassment is unacceptable. Threats to physical integrity are intolerable. But the sensitive skin of an elected official, who confuses legitimate criticism with unacceptable intimidation, should never be enough to expel an inconvenient citizen from a municipal council.
It is enough to have recently heard in the corridors of the federal parliament a conservative elected official accuse a journalist simply doing his job of having “intimidated” her – and warn him of a more forceful response if he does it again – to transpose the risk well real gagging of a Quebec voter who would also venture to be rebellious.
If police forces lack the resources to investigate serious threats and promptly lay charges on merit, governments should do something about it. The same goes for speeding up subsequent legal processes. As for social networks, elected officials have all the latitude to summon digital platforms to manage the slippages and incivility that abound there. Or at least to make the effort to try to legislate in this way.
Even more daring, the deputies could strive to set an example. Citizens will not put down the keyboard overnight. If their elected officials started by stopping insulting each other or constantly accusing each other of half-truths, perhaps this could already raise the debate. And allow us to hope that the minds of angry voters will also eventually calm down.