I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 77 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
[English]
Today's meeting, obviously, is taking place in a hybrid format, as most of you know, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022.
I will make some housekeeping announcements.
While public health authorities and the Board of Internal Economy no longer require mask wearing, if you are in the room, then it would be a very good idea, for your sake and each other's, to wear a mask, because COVID-19 and other respiratory diseases are still there around us. Mask use is recommended.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants of this meeting that taking screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website, so you can get whatever you need when you go to that site.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 20, 2022, the committee is meeting to continue its study on safe sport in Canada.
I have a couple of quick things. Do not speak unless the chair recognizes you to speak. Please direct all your questions and answers through the chair. At the very bottom of your screen, for those of you who are here virtually, there is a little globe icon. If you press that, you can get interpretation in English or in French, or in whatever original language is there.
I think that's basically all we need to know, so we're going to start with our witnesses for today.
We have for the first hour, as an individual, Steven Reed, former president of Canadian Soccer, by video conference.
Mr. Reed, you will be given five minutes to speak, and then there will be an open question-and-answer session in which you will be asked questions and respond to them. I will give you a 30-second shout-out...and I mean that I will shout out. I will say “30 seconds” so that you can hear me, because sometimes when people are reading their testimony, they don't look up to see a sign flashing saying 30 seconds or whatever. When I give you the 30-second heads-up, I will expect you to take that time to wrap up. Sometimes if you don't get to finish what you have to say, it'll all come out in the wash when you get to the questions and answers. You can make the points you want to make then.
Mr. Reed, welcome to the committee. You now have five minutes to begin.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hello, Madam Chair and members of the committee. As pointed out, I'm Steven Reed.
For much of my adult life I've dedicated my time to volunteering in the sport of soccer. I've coached youth teams in Victoria and Surrey, served as vice-president and president of the British Columbia Soccer Association and served on Canada Soccer's board of directors for 15 years.
Most recently, as the committee knows, I was vice-president of Canada Soccer from 2012 to 2017, and president of Canada Soccer from 2017 to 2020. Prior to that, it was my great privilege to serve on the national organizing committee for the FIFA Women's World Cup Canada 2015, a competition that was one of the high points for me and for soccer in Canada.
As this committee also knows, Canada Soccer is the governing body for the sport of soccer in our country, made up of provincial and territorial associations and professional league members. Canada Soccer is also charged with coaching development, referee development and national team programs at all age levels.
During my time on the Canada Soccer board, I focused on collaborating with partners and staff to grow soccer in Canada from the grassroots level up and strove to ensure that soccer is the safest sport in our country. Building on that outline, the remarks I make today will focus on two areas specifically: one, my role in the negotiations of the Canada Soccer-Canadian Soccer Business, or CSB, agreement; and two, the safe sports guardrails that were initiated during my time on the Canada Soccer board.
Before proceeding further, I also want to underline that I left Canada Soccer in 2020 when my term expired, and I have played no role in the association since that time. As such, my ability to comment on more recent events is limited.
Regarding the CSB agreement, which was unanimously agreed to by the Canada Soccer board on March 23, 2018, as this committee has heard, the CSB agreement provides valuable broadcast and streaming opportunities for both senior national teams. It guarantees annual payments to Canada Soccer and has secured new partners for investment in grassroots and high-performance soccer in Canada. Prior to the CSB agreement, Canada Soccer was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to broadcast women’s and men’s national team matches. No Canadian broadcaster was willing to pay to broadcast the games. The agreement resolved that issue and has helped grow the women’s and men’s games in Canada. That reality was one of the major motivating factors of the Canada Soccer board for entering into the agreement. In short, there are benefits to the agreement for all parties.
The CSB agreement is a dynamic document. I know current Canada Soccer and CSB senior leadership are exploring ways to update it, but at the outset, the agreement was a strong and appropriate way to create revenue certainty for Canada Soccer and control costs. It’s also important to note the CSB agreement is not the only source of revenue for Canada Soccer. For example, Canada Soccer receives significant gate revenue from the matches the association hosts.
On the matter of safe and respectful conduct in sport, my firm personal belief is that everyone who engages in sport must be afforded the right and opportunity to play, train and compete in a healthy and supportive environment that is respectful, equitable and free from all forms of harassment and abuse.
During the time I served as president of Canada Soccer, our board and staff took many actions to ensure the association was meeting that imperative, including by leading or assisting with developing and launching a club licensing program; building a relationship with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection; signing a long-term partnership with Respect Group; hiring a manager of coach education and a master coach developer; and publishing a new coach education pathway. We also developed and rolled out a national children's licence and approved and launched the Canada Soccer safe sport roster, which combines mandatory certification for all coaches, a sophisticated club licensing program, a national soccer registry, a whistle-blower policy and hotline, a code of conduct and ethics, and concussion protocols to create the best possible conditions for players, coaches, referees and administrators.
Those and other initiatives are indicative of my personal commitment to safe sport and of Canada Soccer’s commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of everyone playing and participating in soccer in Canada.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering your questions.
I did not have to give you a 30-second warning, Mr. Reed, so thank you.
We're going to the question-and-answer session. The first round is six minutes. I must remind everyone that the six minutes must include the question and the answer, so be as succinct as you possibly can.
We will begin this round with a member from the Conservative Party. The first one up will be Mrs. Thomas for the Conservatives.
Rachael, you have six minutes, please.
Mr. Reed, you served as president of BC Soccer from 2006 to 2009, and at the same time you also served on the board for Canada Soccer.
In 2008, the women's coach, Bob Birarda, was accused of sexually assaulting players. Eventually he was released from Soccer Canada, but the allegations were covered up and it was said to be a “mutual decision”.
A few months later, Mr. Birarda was hired to coach the U14 girls team under BC Soccer. As president of BC Soccer at that time, I'm wondering what your role was in that decision-making process.
:
Okay. I'm sure my colleagues will have many more questions on this.
Let me ask another question because I'm flabbergasted at that answer. I don't think I want to further pursue it.
Section 1.10 of the bylaws of Canada Soccer that were in place the day that you signed the CSB agreement stated as follows: “Deeds, transfers, assignments, contracts, obligations and other instruments in writing requiring execution by Canada Soccer shall be signed by the General Secretary and any one (1) of the President or Vice President.”
You were the only one who signed the CSB agreement, Mr. Reed.
Why did Peter Montopoli, the general secretary who was required by the bylaws to sign it, not sign it?
:
You mentioned in your testimony that on March 23, 2018, Canada Soccer authorized the signature of these agreements that you signed on January 1, 2019.
What you're missing, Mr. Reed, is that Canada Soccer has changed its story. When they showed up here, that's what they claimed. I showed them that there were minutes in December 2018 showing that the board itself had clearly determined that it did not approve the deal because the deal was still being negotiated.
Then they showed up mysteriously with minutes of 7 February, 2019, where the board did approve the deal. You have a director named Ryan Fequet, who was on the board at the time, and he's quoted as saying:
The board recognized this was a s--t deal right from the start....
You should know about an organization you are partnering with if you are giving them literally all of your marketing rights. And every time we have asked for information about Canada Soccer Business, the board has been shut down. The board absolutely did not approve this contract.
Mr. Fequet was a member of the board on both of these dates.
How could he say this when you're claiming the whole board agreed?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I almost feel like asking you if you know the Vancouver Whitecaps, but I will take this in another direction.
Given your role as a member of the board and treasurer in 2009, how aware were you of the troubling reports of a head coach and the disappearance of funds, misleading financial statements and other unethical acts within the national women's team program?
On Monday we heard, during Andrea Neil's testimony, that Canada Soccer, instead of investigating and disciplining the manager involved, promoted him and punished the coaches of the women's national team who took the initiative to report the reprehensible acts.
How much were you told about these situations and what was your involvement?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Last summer and fall at this committee we saw how dysfunctional Hockey Canada is, including financially, as well as its refusal to take responsibility for the cases of abuse and sexual assault. Based on what we have been hearing for the past few weeks, I must say that Canada Soccer's dysfunction far exceeds what we saw at Hockey Canada.
[English]
I am very surprised, Mr. Reed, by the testimony that we've been hearing about Canada Soccer, the refusal to handle serious cases of sexual abuse seriously and to deal with financial matters in a responsible way.
I believe, quite frankly, that Canada Soccer is worse than Hockey Canada in many respects in dealing with these important issues.
I would like to come back to the questions that were asked by Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Housefather around the case of a sexual offender, somebody who is in prison for his sexual offences, Bob Birarda. From what I understand from your testimony, which is now under oath, you were aware of the allegations and simply lost track of where he was in the Canada Soccer system.
Is that an honest interpretation of what you've just told us?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll continue on the same pathway as my colleague Mrs. Thomas.
Sir, I think what we've established, so far this afternoon, is that you felt no moral onus to make sure other young athletes weren't at risk of abuse, given the abuse you were already aware of after Bob Birarda left your purview. You seem to be telling us now that all the problems are fixed and this will never happen again.
If a team were to find out that players were being abused in a soccer situation, what would happen now? How can parents and athletes feel safe, given the changes you've made as of today?
:
It is, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.
Mr. Reed, your testimony is interesting today because, when you were president of Soccer Canada in 2017, Birarda was actually a head coach at the Canada Soccer under-17 national championship. He was the head coach of a Coastal under-17 team in October 2018.
You tell me you knew, maybe in 2008. You did nothing and then 10 years later, he surfaces at a national championship coaching an under-17 team.
In your opening statement, you said that “soccer is the safest sport in our country”. Here I've just found out that Birarda won a Canada Soccer under-17 national championship as head coach when you were the president of Soccer Canada. Could you comment on that? You surely must have known he was head coach for under-17s.
:
I call this hour of the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 77 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I want to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Today's meeting is in a hybrid format. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Tuesday, September 20, 2022, the committee is meeting to continue its study on safe sport in Canada.
Before I go forward, there are little bits of housekeeping. For those of you who are virtual, at the bottom of the screen there's a globe icon. Please look at it. It can give you the interpretation you may need. You can check whether you want English, French or floor audio.
Everything that you say or do should go through the chair—answering questions and speaking. Do not speak unless I have acknowledged that you may. That is basically it.
I want to ask one question of the clerk. We only have three-quarters of an hour to do this. Is there any ability for us to go over that time, Mike, or do we just have a hard stop at 5:30?
:
Thank you. That would be very helpful.
We're going to begin with Dr. Julie Macfarlane, co-founder of Can't Buy My Silence, professor emerita of law, University of Windsor. We then have the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, Jill Shillabeer, Leading Change call to action coordinator; and Anthony Parker, Leading Change facilitator.
Just to let you know that as a group, Ms. Shillabeer and Mr. Parker, you will have five minutes. You can divide up your time the way you see fit.
Dr. Macfarlane, you will have five minutes.
We will begin now with Dr. Macfarlane for five minutes please. I will give you a 30-second shout-out when you should wrap up.
My name is Julie Macfarlane. I have been a law professor for 40 years, working in the U.K., Ireland, Hong Kong, Australia, the U.S, and most of all, obviously, in Canada. I was honoured with the Order of Canada for my work on access to justice in 2022.
I am also, personally, a survivor of sexual abuse and rape. In 2014, I sued the Anglican church for sexual abuse by a church minister while I was a teenager. This was when I first encountered the default use of non-disclosure agreements to silence those who make settlements over sexual abuse.
I told the Anglican church immediately that I had no intention and would not consider signing an NDA. In fact, part of my settlement with the church was a new code of practice for its insurers, when working with the victims of sexual violence and abuse. It included a provision that an NDA would only be used in “exceptional circumstances”.
How naive I was then. Now I know this practice continues, and hence my commitment to legislative change and not purely voluntary change that can't monitored. I think that has other ramifications for the issues you're discussing here in the committee.
In 2013, I became aware that one of my faculty colleagues at the University of Windsor was sexually harassing students. Having heard directly from the students he was targeting, I went to my president, who ordered his suspension and an investigation. A year later, he was terminated for multiple instances of abuse and harassment in a three-page termination letter.
The students and I felt relieved until I began to receive calls from colleagues at overseas law schools where he had applied for a position. They were asking me, “Why did a tenured professor leave the University of Windsor?” I realized immediately the university had given him an NDA, a copy of which I now have. It included cleaning his personnel files for the previous 10 years and also a letter of recommendation, which he took with him.
I'm sure this all sounds rather familiar having just been listening to the testimony of Mr. Reed of Canada Soccer. It is absolutely plain that Bob Birarda was given an NDA, as this is the default practice in the settlement of sexual abuse and harassment suits. Of course, that was why nothing was ever said about where he was going to work next, why no red flag was placed by his name and why Mr. Reed would have needed to get legal advice if he was going to speak about what he had done and to place a warning on him.
We see this constantly all the time.
After two years of efforts to persuade the University of Windsor to change its policy on giving NDAs to people it acknowledged were known predators, I resigned in disgust in December 2020. I then joined forces with Zelda Perkins, who was the first woman to break her Harvey Weinstein NDA. We have created Can't Buy My Silence, a global campaign to ban the use of NDAs to cover up misconduct.
I am happy to say we have already made rapid strides in Canada. We have a bill that was passed into law in Ontario, strengthening post-secondary institutions, which now bans universities, like the University of Windsor, from doing what it did in 2014. That feels very important to me personally.
Further than that, having worked with lawmakers in Ireland to create a model bill to limit the use of NDAs to their original purpose—which, let's remember, was the protection of trade secrets—that legislation is now going forward in Ireland. It was passed into law in Prince Edward Island in 2022 as the Non-disclosure Agreements Act. That legislation covers all workplaces, including universities and voluntary positions, like coaching in a sports area. That has also been tabled in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Manitoba, and will shortly be tabled in Ontario.
We have collected data at Can't Buy My Silence that is qualitative, through personal anonymized stories of people who have been coerced into NDAs and who consistently don't understand what they're signing and consistently aren't given an alternative—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm happy to be joining you today from Amiskwacîwâskahikan, also known as Edmonton, and I use she/her pronouns. My colleague Anthony Parker, who uses he/him pronouns, lives in Moh'kinsstsis, which is also known as Calgary. We recognize that we are all treaty people and have a responsibility to understand our history so that we can honour the past, be aware of the present and create a just and caring future.
My team at the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, or ACWS, works to bring shelter-informed gender-based violence prevention education to diverse individuals, schools, community groups, workplaces and sports teams. My colleague played as a wide receiver with the Calgary Stampeders and, through our 10-year partnership with that team, has become a Leading Change facilitator as well. Through our work, we have both seen first-hand the transformational effects that our program can have.
ACWS and our members have been working in gender-based violence prevention since our organization was formed 40 years ago this month. We began strategic work to engage men and boys in the early 2000s through various programs we now call “Leading Change”. Leading Change has its roots in sports culture and was developed in partnership with Dr. Jackson Katz, who leads a highly regarded gender-based violence prevention program in the United States.
As you can see from the inspired communities model that was submitted for everyone's review, our approach is rooted in six key values, and I'd like to highlight three of those.
We are informed by women's organizations and experience. This is crucial. Though anyone can experience gender-based violence, women and gender minorities experience violence at the highest rates. Our program is both informed by and accountable back to those lived experiences.
Secondly, we take a strength-based approach, and what this means is that we focus on the things that we can do, as opposed to the things that we can't. It also means that, while we know most violence is perpetrated by men, most men are not violent. In fact, most men have more capacity to effect change than they may realize, and they are a vital part of the solution, as you have been discovering in your study.
Thirdly, we know that transformation requires long-term, large-scale and coordinated efforts, and we are grateful for the work of this committee in looking at the issues facing Hockey Canada not as limited to a few circumstances but as widespread and systemic, extending well beyond one group, one sport or one place.
Over the years, we've worked with numerous organizations. In sports, this includes both Alberta professional football teams, various minor football teams, staff at Hockey Alberta and, most recently, the Alberta Junior Hockey League, or the AJHL.
During the 2021-22 season, we started with one team, the Blackfalds Bulldogs. Over four sessions, we explored what gender-based violence is and what consent means. We discussed healthy masculinities and healthy relationships and talked about their leadership role in making change. After a transformative season, the Bulldogs put us in touch with Ryan Bartoshyk, the commissioner of the AJHL, so that we could take this work across the league.
Commissioner Bartoshyk has been incredibly supportive and had this to say about the work, may it please the committee, and I quote:
We believe that our players can use their position as role models and leaders in Alberta communities to contribute to positive change and promote anti-violence.
He also said:
The Alberta Council of Women's Shelters has provided our young athletes with education on abuse prevention, consent and assistance in identifying how they can model this leadership in their everyday lives.
We thank the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters for their commitment to this initiative and look [forward to the] partnership in the upcoming 2023-23 Season.
This past year, we worked with about 400 players in the league. We talked in depth about issues ranging from the unhealthy messaging that's circulating on some Internet forums and navigating news media on current events related to gender-based violence, to understanding the amount of safety work that most women do just to leave their house on a daily basis and how to hear a “no” and respond respectfully to that.
The players were all left with the same message: That it is not enough to not be part of the problem and that they need to be part of the solution actively. The feedback we got from this was very encouraging.
Since completing the season, as I mentioned, Commissioner Bartoshyk has invited us back for next year. We've been recognized by the Edmonton chapter of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund for our work, and we've presented our work at a national conference, leading to conversations about how to expand the program.
May it please the committee, it's important when looking at solutions to these challenges to consider the resources required to run programs like ours. We firmly believe that supporting women's organizations to do this work both maintains accountability back to the people who have lived experience of violence and ensures that the response evolves quickly, because violence itself evolves and manifests through changing technology and in response to factors like COVID-19. We really need to be able to rise to meet this ongoing challenge in real time.
This past year, we were fortunate to receive funding from the Canadian Women's Foundation and Edmonton's Kinsmen Club for different aspects of our work.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. You were here previously, and most of your testimony was to do with a different subject matter, but you did initiate this conversation at the end, which I very much appreciated.
Thank you for what the work you have been doing. We've heard many challenges, but this is something more positive in what can be done.
I know the commissioner, and if we do get time in this study, he's willing to appear here. The Alberta Junior Hockey League is in playoffs at the moment, which includes the town I'm in, of course.
I talked to the commissioner, who has participated, from my understanding, in sessions with you. His evaluation of what you're doing and what you're attempting to do with the players in the league, 16-year-old to 21-year-old young men, is that he felt it's incredibly valuable. You've quoted him. I would look for more responses you may have had from other sources. What other feedback are you getting on what you are out to accomplish?
:
We have had a great response. We like to call Leading Change a promising practice that has over 10 years' worth of evidence-based research behind it. We've been doing this work for a very long time, and all of our evaluations are really quite positive.
I can tell you stories about players. We meet them in their locker rooms. We often speak to them about how it is for them and how they are doing, because they just want to chat afterwards.
I can think of one player in particular who is aging out of the league this year. She said that five years ago when she started, this conversation would never have happened in the AJHL, but now it just seems normal. She said that it is making them a better team and stronger players, and that they're able to talk about things that are more difficult than they could previously.
If it pleases Madam Chair, I would like to hand the mike over to my colleague Anthony, who went through the training as a Stampeder about 10 years ago and has experience as a facilitator as well.
Yes, I can definitely relate to having taken part in this training, and then, of course, proceeding to becoming a facilitator.
I think the point you just brought up about bringing it to the players in their locker rooms is that it has proven to be tremendously valuable. Coming from that environment, I understand what it's like to be in that hypermasculinized environment, where we're expected to adhere to some certain norm, whatever that may be.
Being in their environment in the locker room, which is their comfort zone, we're able to go in there and really just have positive face-to-face conversations in an environment where their guard is going to be down a little bit more and they're a little bit more receptive.
I can also attest to the fact that I remember having the mentality when I started this program that this was not going to be something that could be done in the locker room with my guys. I could see myself having this conversation outside of the locker room. I can come to say now that I was pleasantly surprised in the response I got.
I'd like to also mention, as a further example, the impact that this program can have. I remember having a conversation with the Calgary Canucks in their locker room just a couple of months ago. It was a wonderful conversation. They're a great group of guys, and they were very receptive and they were thankful to us for coming to have that conversation. They found tremendous value in it coming from somebody who had been in their position.
I was wonderfully impressed when, the next day at my kid's school, I happened to see four of the Calgary Canucks taking part in a reading program with K-to-six kids. It just goes to show, when you have that positive impact on those players, how that multiplicity can affect everything. They're going to now have the opportunity to have a positive impact on all of the people in their communities.
I'd just like to share with the committee what a wonderful impact that has had, and I was able to witness that first-hand.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I mentioned, we haven't as of yet been successful in securing multi-year funding to support the program. I would advise, though it is expensive for us as a charity organization, from a government budget perspective, it is relatively inexpensive. I don't know that there is a women's organization out there that hasn't yet figured out how to turn a dime into a dollar.
In terms of the authentic voices bringing this work forward, it's really important that this be informed by the lived experiences of people who have experienced violence. Being an organization that is a member-based organization representing women's shelters in the province, we have been able to bring that forward and represent those voices.
When I mentioned that we had been presenting at a national conference on this work recently, it was a women's shelters conference. We do have interest from a number of other organizations across the country to be able to take this prevention work forward; however, again, funding becomes the challenging issue in trying to make sure that we are able to travel to meet all those teams.
In Alberta, we went from Fort McMurray to Brooks and east-west from Grande Prairie to Lloydminster, so we were in all corners of Alberta. That does take time, staff and resources, and there are travel costs involved.
:
That's a great question.
The legislation that we are advocating for is limited to non-disclosure agreements that cover up misconduct, sexual misconduct, harassment, bullying and discrimination.
Can I just add that there is an astonishing number of cases of proven discrimination? I'm talking now about pregnancy discrimination, discrimination against people with disabilities—they're not being accommodated and they're being forced out—many cases of discrimination on the basis of race and anti-indigenous racism.
We are seeing an enormous proliferation of the use of non-disclosure agreements in these cases. Much as you've indicated, they have become the default. We have data now that shows that a significant number of people.... For example, in the United States, there are three studies that now show that one in three people is subject to a non-disclosure agreement. There is data that we have put together from the quantitative survey we've been running that shows that a third of the people who answered that survey have also been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Let me pause a moment and suggest that there is an important distinction here between a confidentiality agreement, which simply says the amount of the settlement will not be divulged.... That is, I know, standard practice. In fact, there's an exception in the legislation for just that.
There may also be the need for confidentiality that the parties both agree to in terms of not speaking to the media or making this public. However, what non-disclosure agreements are doing now is preventing people from speaking up for their entire lives, because these are indefinite agreements. They are until the end of one's life. In fact, I've heard arguments that they endure, even after the death of the predator.
These are agreements, for the lifetime of the victims who sign them, that they cannot speak to anybody. We're talking about family, friends, therapists, counsellors, elders and people who might support them. This is why it was apparently impossible for Soccer Canada to put a red flag on Mr. Birarda. It was because he would have negotiated a non-disclosure agreement that would have kept everything that he did secret, and everybody would have been too afraid to break that and make it known that he is somebody who should be treated as a possibly dangerous person to be coaching young people.
Yes, we are confining this to those cases of misconduct, sexual violence and abuse, harassment and discrimination.
I would also say the committee should be aware that these NDAs are also being used in consumer disputes. The reason we didn't know about tainted baby formula for almost 20 years after the first settlement was made, and that the formula kept on being sold and poisoning babies, was because of an NDA.
We see them, as well, in professional services disagreements, when there is apparently an oath taken to never speak of this again. We see them in complaints in care homes, where people who speak up about concerns about the care being given to their relatives, or even professionals in the care homes, are being immediately NDA'd.
I think that is extremely dangerous, and I don't understand why there is any reason to perpetuate something that has, to a great extent, caused the revictimization of folks in sports and beyond.
:
Obviously, you would know, as a lawyer, that employment law in Canada is almost entirely provincial. We have been moving province by province, because it needs to be done at a provincial level.
However, I would add, and I have permission to inform you today.... There is a whole group of people who are employed by the federal government, and there are many organizations and agencies that are funded by the federal government, including Hockey Canada. There will be a bill tabled shortly in the federal government to protect those workers in the federal government from being NDA'd.
Again, we have many examples of individuals working for this government who have raised complaints about discrimination and complaints about sexual harassment, and they have been NDA'd and terminated. I think it's very important to protect that group as well.
However, the vast majority of our work, because that is a jurisdiction of employment law, is done province by province.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Macfarlane, let me begin by thanking you for your work, which we can acknowledge and recognize today. My team and I thank you for your dedication to this cause.
Today you have seen a part of our work.
I am shocked by the image protection operation orchestrated by Hockey Canada and the inaction by its managers. Last year, when we began this study, I said that the use of non-disclosure agreements was abusive. I thought the timing of your statement was especially interesting.
Do you support the idea of an independent public inquiry to shed light on the abuse we see in all sports, not just hockey or soccer?
I think that you follow the work of our committee and even that of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.
:
Yes, absolutely. There is a methodological problem here, as I would say as a researcher, which is that we're talking about secret settlements. How you collect data on secret settlements is of course very problematic. We've done it by allowing people to be anonymous in both telling their full stories and completing our survey. As well, quite a lot of material has been uncovered by various freedom of information requests over the last couple of years by journalists.
I think it will be imperative that an inquiry includes looking at the use and prevalence of NDAs—I think it will shock even the members of the committee—in sports organizations and beyond. It will be important to say, for example, that NDAs were signed that would ordinarily prevent people from even saying they signed an NDA, because, of course, you will realize that even saying you signed an NDA is a breach of an NDA. It will be very important to release people for that purpose. Otherwise, there inevitably will be a fear about people coming forward.
The committee may know that in Manitoba we already had a bill moved to committee there. It's actually just starting all over again now. It's about to go to committee again, because there was not sufficient time for it to be completed last session. In that committee, we made it clear to people who were in touch with us constantly about the use of NDAs and their silencing via an NDA that they could speak without fear of consequences, because they had parliamentary privilege to do so. That session was absolutely amazing. It is available for people to watch on our YouTube channel.
I think the inquiry needs to make it clear that people can come forward and speak to them about being bound by an NDA with no consequences to them, because people literally live in fear. They live in fear of having the money that they may have been given to compensate for the harm taken away. They also live in fear that their name will then be made public. They don't want their name made public. They want to maintain their own privacy and to control that as they would wish to do, which is exactly, for example, what the federal government is now doing in relation to criminal publication bans. Give the victims the right to control how public they want to be.
I hope the inquiry will look at the use of NDAs, but it will have to be with some kind of amnesty or release for people who sign them.
:
I think an inquiry will help, but I also—I'm sorry to be repetitive—have to return to the fact that what will really help is taking away the current right to force an NDA on somebody in order for them to secure their own privacy.
One of the questions asked in our survey, for people who decided not to file a formal complaint of discrimination, harassment or sexual harassment, was why they did not do that. Over 30% now.... The survey is increasing all the time. It's currently at about 1,200 people, which is a pretty respectable number. One-third of the people who said they didn't complain said it was because they anticipated they would have to sign an NDA and they didn't want to sign an NDA.
Increasingly, Canadians understand just what that means. It means that you are silenced for the rest of your life. Obviously, these folks aren't being followed around with video cameras, Sébastien, but people become very fearful. There are all kinds of mental health consequences that flow from this, as well, that we also have a lot of data on.
I think it will be critical to simply take away the possibility of an NDA in the future, which is what our legislation is doing, and to restrict that to the use of intellectual property and trade secrets, which was what this was originally designed to do in the 1980s.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I also want to thank the witnesses who are here today.
You contribute a great deal, all three of you, to the committee's deliberations.
The federal government just renewed funding for Hockey Canada, even though it did not change its position on non-disclosure agreements. I think this renewal is premature.
I will ask you the same question I asked earlier.
Do you think it is healthy for the federal government to allow Hockey Canada to believe that even though an organization has not changed its ethical stance on non-disclosure agreements, it can still get public funding?
[English]
Hockey Canada is now receiving funding from the federal government, after a suspension, even though they have not backed off from signing non-disclosure agreements. This is something that came up repeatedly in the Hockey Canada hearings we have had.
My question is very simple. Is it appropriate for the federal government to be financing Hockey Canada when they have not made any sort of commitment to stop the pressure of signing non-disclosure agreements on victims of sexual abuse or sexual violence?
I was absolutely shocked when I heard. I was actually away in the United Kingdom when the news came through a few weeks ago that Hockey Canada was going to get funding back without having said anything about NDAs.
In fact, a kind of throwaway comment was made by the Hockey Canada CEO to the committee last summer when the hearings began that, if anybody wanted to be released from their NDA, it was no problem—they should just get in touch. I cannot tell you what a disingenuous statement that is, because how are people supposed to get in touch? Are they supposed to google Hockey Canada? Who do they ask? How do they do this? Of course, these are all people who are very fearful of the consequences of breaking their NDA.
I think the very first thing Hockey Canada should have done—they should have done this last summer—was say, “We shall formally release people from existing non-disclosure agreements, so they can contribute to the work of the study and the work of the committee”. They should have done that, and they still can do it by writing directly to each of the people. They know who the people are. They could write to them directly to say that they will tear up their non-disclosure agreements.
The second thing they should do is undertake to not use them again in the future. Otherwise, nothing is going to change, frankly, and it will all be pushed back under the carpet again. They can make agreements for confidentiality on the amount of money they paid. There might be special circumstances they want to agree to in terms of the public use of some of that information, but gagging victims without their being able to speak to anybody, and of course unable to then warn others about the people whom they have experienced.... This has become so incredibly effective in enabling these perpetrators to reoffend. We see that over and over again.
There is much research now—and I'm sure my colleague witnesses are very aware of this—that shows that acts of violence, sexual violence and harassment are carried out by a very small number of people over and over again. This is very rarely a one-off occurrence. We already know that people who have done this once are very likely to do it again, yet we're going to cover that up so they can do it again.
I believe Hockey Canada should release people immediately by writing to them, but not by saying, “Hey, get in touch; we'll think about it”. Write to them and release them.
Secondly, they should have been asked before funding was restored to undertake to never use a non-disclosure agreement again.
I did say at the beginning that the voluntary pledges are a very important part of culture change in relation to NDAs, but I think the reality is that secret settlements have to be outlawed because we cannot monitor what is going on behind those closed doors.
:
Thank you, Dr. Macfarlane.
I am sorry, Peter, but we are now 40 seconds over your six-minute mark.
We could go an extra 15 minutes. I would like to get the committee's sense on this. Can you stay another 15 minutes?
We are almost at 5:30 when this meeting is officially supposed to end. We could go another 15 minutes. It would mean that we would do a round of three, three, 1.5, 1.5, and three and three. You know what I'm talking about.
Do I have agreement for that?
Does anyone disagree with Ms. Gladu?
I can see the floor. I don't see any hands being raised, so it's obvious that everyone is in agreement.
I want to thank the witnesses. As Marilyn said, it's fascinating. The issue of non-disclosure is a fascinating one, and I think the balance, as we've always heard, if you don't do a non-disclosure, people won't want to come forward. Victims wouldn't want to come forward and speak about their problems because they would be afraid. There are two sides to the story, but what you were saying makes a lot of sense.
I want to thank all three of you for coming and presenting. Thank you for the work you're doing, and thank you for some very interesting testimony.
I now declare the meeting adjourned.