The protection of politicians in Canada

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 10/08/2024 (743 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The recent assassination attempt of former U.S. president Donald Trump reminded us of the history of political violence in that country. It brought out a sense of moral superiority among some Canadians. We see ourselves as the “ peaceable kingdom.”

Unlike the U.S., our political culture is not the product of revolutionary and civil wars. Four presidents have been assassinated but not one prime minister. Restrictions on firearms are contentious, but more accepted in Canada. In general, our political culture is less individualistic, with less widespread, less intense anti-government sentiment.

These historical differences have been shrinking over time as cultural developments spill over the border into Canada. Polarization, anger and violence seem to be contagious.

Being a politician in Canada has become a less respected and increasingly a dangerous occupation. Polls indicate that over 60 per cent of Canadians do not trust politicians , with the highest levels of mistrust targeted at federal party representatives compared to provincial and municipal politicians.

Abuse of politicians is rising and takes many forms, both online and offline. There are verbal attacks on the motivations, character, appearance and ideas of politicians. Women are disproportionately targeted, including in the form of sexist language and bullying.

Legitimate protests staged at constituency offices and the private residences of politicians can descend into threatening behaviour and property damage. With increasing regularity, individuals utter threats, especially online, of physical violence, even death, to elected representatives and their families.The cost of protecting politicians is rising dramatically.

Earlier this year, the sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons, Patrick McDonell, who is responsible for security, told a parliamentary committee that his office opened 530 files on threats to MPs in 2023. There were just eight such files in 2019. A report from the public service warned such threats were being “normalized” and the commissioner of the RCMP suggested that the force might need new tools to deal with problems.

In 2020, a Manitoba man drove his truck though the gates of the prime minister’s residence hoping to confront Justin Trudeau. In the 2021 election campaign, Trudeau was pelted with gravel. Chrystia Freeland, the finance minister, was verbally accosted in a public setting. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre told the media that his wife and family have received death threats. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has been the victim of racist slurs and was harassed while campaigning.

After the Trump shooting, Canada’s Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc reported that the RCMP would be extra vigilant in protecting the prime minister and other party leaders. It may be possible to strengthen security for the dozens of party leaders at the national and provincial levels of government, but it is impossible to provide continuous police protection for the remaining 300-plus MPs, 105 senators, and the hundreds of elected provincial representatives across the country, including the 57 MLAs in Manitoba.

I am particularly interested in what is happening in terms of the growing need for greater security for constituency offices. Such offices are meant to be visible, open and accessible to members of the local community.

It is here that an important part of the representation process happens. There are regular office hours when elected politicians and their staff listen to the opinions and concerns of their constituents. Problems that constituents are having with government, especially with the bureaucracy, are addressed and often resolved.

There is also a symbolic aspect to such encounters. Constituency service allows community members to put a human face on government. It demonstrates that governments can be responsive.

Individuals who deal with their local representatives typically have greater trust and confidence in politicians than people who have not availed themselves of constituency services.

If the current threat environment worsens, more tradeoffs between the safety of politicians and their clients and the openness and accessibility of the constituency service process will become necessary.

Here are several examples of the dilemmas involved. In January 2022, police were called to the constituency office of a Manitoba NDP MLA to deal with a threatening individual. In January 2024, a constituency worker in Nova Scotia was attacked, leading to unsuccessful calls for funding of a second staff person to increase safety. In the same year, Pierre Polievere’s call for carbon tax protests at Liberal and NDP constituency offices led to warnings for staff to lock office doors and have their mobile distress buttons available.

Enhancing security for politicians and their employees involves a risk assessment of individual cases. Possible security measures for constituency offices include: the creation of a protective buffer zone, CCTV cameras, training on security matters for staff, the provision of panic buttons, coating on windows to prevent shattering, an electronic entry system, waiting areas without loose items, and the availability of a secure inner office.

It is unfortunate that such precautions are needed. Disrespect,threats and violence add to the numerous factors which discourage good people from entering politics. Heightened security measures limit use of constituency offices as community resources. Politicians, their advisers, the media and the public need to stand against the growing toxic political culture.

Paul G. Thomas is professor emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Manitoba.