:
Good morning. I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 78 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I want to acknowledge that the meeting is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
[English]
Obviously, this meeting is taking place in a hybrid fashion.
For those of you who are together in the committee room, you do not have to wear a mask. It's not compulsory, but it is something that you might want to think about doing. COVID is still around, and so are other respiratory diseases.
I want to take this opportunity to remind all participants that they cannot take photographs of this meeting or of their view on Zoom. The proceedings will be made available on the public website, so you'll be able to get anything you want off that website.
Also, when you speak, please make sure that you address everything through the chair.
There will be a question and answer period. During that time, again, you cannot speak unless the chair recognizes you.
The other thing I want to say is that it's important.... If you look at the bottom of your screen, you'll see that there's a little globe icon. When you press that, it will give you translations in English, French or the floor language—the original language, whichever you choose to use.
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.
Today we have quite a few very important witnesses who, I gather, have expertise on this issue in different ways.
We have, as individuals, Shauna Bookal, manager of equity, diversity, inclusion and student experience at Ontario University Athletics; Whitney Bragagnolo, Ph.D. candidate and sport governance and anti-corruption consultant; Dr. Joëlle Carpentier, professor, school of management, Université du Québec à Montréal; and Richard McLaren, chief executive officer, McLaren Global Sport Solutions.
Also, we have, from Égale Action, Sylvie Béliveau, director, gender equity; and from Laboratoire de recherche pour la progression des femmes dans les sports au Québec, we have Dr. Guylaine Demers, professor and director.
Before we begin the meeting and I let the witnesses speak, I notice that Mr. Housefather has his hand up.
Mr. Housefather.
:
All right. That's where we're going to go.
Clerk, we can try to do this on Monday for an extra 15 minutes at the end of the meeting.
Thank you very much.
Obviously, we're going to postpone this to Monday, May 8, to discuss in a small business meeting of 15 minutes to get some things done. Hearing no one objecting to that, I would like to let the clerk know that I think we're going to look at having some time to do that on Monday.
Thank you very much.
Now I want to move to the witnesses.
Witnesses, you have five minutes each. I will shout out—literally—30 seconds before the end of your time so you can wrap up. I know that saying “30 seconds” tends to butt in, but I've found in the past that people don't look up when they're reading, and they don't see me frantically waving that they have 30 seconds left. I will just shout out “30 seconds”, and you can wrap up. You will have time during the question and answer section to elaborate on something that you did not get to finish in your five-minute presentation.
Without further ado, we will begin with Shauna Bookal.
You have five minutes, please, Ms. Bookal.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to speak in front of the standing committee.
I am not an Olympian. I am not a national team coach. I am not a researcher or scholar. I'm coming to you as a first-generation, proud Jamaican Canadian who grew up in Scarborough, Ontario, with a background in amateur sport spanning over 30 years. My experience and the thoughts I'm going to share with you come from a different lens. I'm a former grassroots athlete and coach turned amateur-sport administrator and educator.
Growing up in the sport system in the 1990s, I was identified as an emerging Black leader and was able to take NCCP and leaders-in-training programs at no cost. I went on to complete three degrees in sport management and have been involved in almost every major sporting event that has come to Toronto since 2012. I was also the executive director of a provincial sport organization. I was the only Black female across the country to hold this position for two years.
Sometime in the early 2000s, the sport system started to change. It went from a “sport for all” emphasis to a high-performance focus. The emerging leader programs for minorities started to disappear. The emphasis on mandatory training started to become optional. Less focus was given to amateur sport, and more emphasis was placed on national team athletes and podium finishes. Twenty years later, here we are asking, “What went wrong?” and “Where do we go from here?”
When looking at safe sport...the first place everyone looks is the coaching. Back in the day, I remember watching my dad, who was a volunteer coach, and my mom, a volunteer team manager, go through mandatory training. Part of that included the mandatory background check every year and staying current in their NCCP training. Courses back then were also affordable, and police background checks were free. Coaches would pay, then get a refund.
Nowadays, some coaches, particularly minorities, do not have NCCP certification, due to the high costs associated with the courses. For example, a volunteer coach could potentially pay anywhere between $250 and $4,000 to coach, depending on the level and age of their team. This will unfortunately lead to a lot of coaches with incomplete training, or good coaches not even getting a chance to coach at all, because they are unable to complete the training required for them to be a coach in amateur sports.
The Coaches Association of Ontario and the Coaching Association of Canada used to be very involved in attending community events to help educate the community on all the different programs they had to offer. Nowadays, grassroots organizations do not know the CAO or CAC exist, because information does not flow top-down. Some sport organizations do a great job communicating to the community, while others do not.
When people ask, “Where do we start for safe sport?”, in my opinion, True Sport and the Responsible Coaching Movement need to be mandatory in amateur sport, much like the High Five program is mandatory in recreational sport, especially for grassroots levels. Currently, in Ontario, when you walk into a municipal recreation facility, there is a High Five poster, banner or certification hanging there. If anybody wants to work with youth, they have to have High Five certification, and this is non-negotiable. Why isn't the same standard held for True Sport and RCM?
We also need to make the effective governance training offered by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports mandatory, since, in my experience, board members in amateur sport do not know the difference between a governing board and a working board. CCES offers many programs, but very few people know about them, because, just like me, many assume CCES works only in the area of anti-doping.
In 2020, the murder of George Floyd was a wake-up call on racism across many sectors. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States responded by creating an equity, diversity and inclusion sport strategy that included safe sport. Three years later, I am still waiting to see a central national EDI sport strategy here in Canada.
For the past eight months, I have been working as the manager of EDI and student experience for Ontario University Athletics, where my main portfolio's focus is on EDI, women in sport and safe sport. My position was made possible by the “Making Progress Together” report, which describes how the OUA is advancing towards a safe, equitable and diverse culture. I have shared the report for your review.
Over the past eight months we've developed an anti-racism awareness week, revised our safe sport policy and started executing the “women in sport” plan. From June 23 to 25 of this year, thanks to the support of the Ontario MTCS, the OUA will be hosting a “diversity in sports” conference with a focus on the amateur sport sector. Emerging BIPOC leaders will have the opportunity to receive free NCCP training through this conference as well.
All of my friends and family know how much I love quotes, so I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to leave you with one: “Just because the past didn't turn out like you wanted it to, doesn't mean the future can't be better than you ever imagined.”
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to share my experiences and thoughts with you today.
:
Madam Chair and members of the committee, I express my gratitude for this invitation, for the commitment to addressing these critical concerns, and for your attention to the ethical evolution of Canadian sport.
I'm here independently. What I mean by that is I do not work for, consult with or get paid by any Canadian sport entity. I'm not affiliated with any Canadian academic institution or organization. I left Canada in 2016, and I reside in The Hague. This is of relevance. There are instances when increased objective scrutiny is necessary. Impartial viewpoints mitigate risks of undue influence and promote fact-based decision-making, free from conflict of interest. Independence helps ensure that opinions are unbiased, fair and just.
I come from the field of risk, investigations and sport integrity. I hold a master's degree in sport ethics and integrity, and I am a Ph.D. researcher in sport governance and anti-corruption.
Many have requested this inquiry—myself included. While some individuals may have valid reasons for opposing, it must also be understood that the existence of conflict of interest may be a reason some actors are in opposition, as certain findings might directly or indirectly impact them.
Moving forward, a lack of integrity and professional capacity may cause sport entities and individuals to reject interference from government or judicial authorities by appealing to sport's autonomy. The autonomy of sport, in many cases, can shield leadership from moral, social and judicial scrutiny, resulting in institutions that are not accountable to anyone.
Madam Chair, a fully independent inquiry is necessary. The government's failure to hold sport entities accountable to higher standards of governance has resulted in significant harm. This is despite numerous instances of the lack of capacity of these sport entities to evolve. The government has a responsibility to ensure public health and safe sport.
I offer three solutions to promote the ethical evolution of Canadian sport, where the integrity of sport governance is a vital pillar.
One, commence independent sport governance audits in the inquiry. Existing sport governance frameworks with global recognition and established history can be used to measure and define future requirements, setting the Canadian standard for expected practice. Accessible, transparent audits hold organizations accountable, measuring their capacity for ethical growth and advancement in the intended direction.
Two, incorporate anonymous athlete and employee feedback in all governance audits. Despite being long-ignored, athletes provide critical insight into vulnerabilities, risks and opportunity. Even if things look perfect on paper, anonymous feedback helps ensure that policy, procedures and people are fit for purpose.
Three, establish conceptual clarity on what independence actually means. Entities around safe sport require independence to be effective. For any entity, here are some things to consider. Is a sport organization funding the entity? Is a sport organization funding an entity involved in any ongoing cases? Does the entity have any obligation to disclose information to a sport organization? Does anyone within the entity have a personal connection? Does anyone within the entity have any history enabling abuse or corruption in sport at any level?
Non-disclosure of negative findings hinders the integrity of investigations, accountability and ethical growth. Independence is essential to prevent conflict of interest and enabling behaviour. Not one current sport entity in Canada can be tasked to oversee this inquiry. It must be outside sport.
I'll close with a research finding from me and colleague Yanei Lezama. Fewer than one in five survivors disclose their incident to a reporting mechanism. Ask me why. This helps conceptualize the institutional enablers that exist in our sport systems. It is poor governance that facilitates the continuation of the abuse of power. This underscores why independence is so important and how even seemingly functioning systems can be insufficient.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to share my experience, expertise and views on high-performance sport, generally, and the situation in Canada, specifically.
I'm a professor at the department of human resource management in the school of management at the Université du Québec à Montréal. I have a Ph.D. in social psychology, with a specialty in sport psychology. My research focuses on the coach-athlete relationship and the behaviours coaches must demonstrate to foster both athletic performance and the well-being of athletes.
I, myself, am a former national athlete and coach. I am still active in the world of high-performance sport, working as a performance psychology consultant, giving talks and training to coaches and sport organizations, serving as an official at the national level, and sitting on the board of a provincial federation.
The main thing I want to bring to the committee's attention today is the scientific research into how the social environment affects athletes' development. The science is clear: environments where the emphasis is strictly on performance are harmful to human beings. What's more, generally speaking, those environments lead to the worst outcomes in the long run. Individuals in those settings are willing to do anything for immediate results, even when their actions or decisions could be damaging to themselves, others or their organization.
The Canadian sport system, particularly its funding structure, is based primarily on the rapid achievement of results. When funding hinges on short-term performance and success, federations demand immediate results in order to keep their funding and ultimately ensure their survival. Consequently, they tolerate unacceptable behaviour on the part of certain coaches, administrators and athletes for the sake of short-term results. Under that type of system, it's always the same federations, the same sports, the same coaches and the same practices that benefit from funding, at the expense of innovation, modernization, diversity and well-being.
Tolerating—if not implicitly promoting—these kinds of destructive behaviours creates a sport culture where they are the norm. It is time to really educate all those involved in the Canadian sport system on what is acceptable behaviour and, conversely, what should be considered unacceptable in sport. For far too long, this results-driven system has allowed unacceptable behaviour to go unchecked in the name of athletic performance, so much so that the behaviour is now widely considered acceptable, even desirable.
In recent months, numerous coaches have been singled out, and rightfully so, for their inappropriate behaviour towards athletes. It is necessary, however, to examine how the current sport system influences and even encourages that behaviour. When a system prioritizes results—or worse, the rapid achievement of results—it puts pressure on coaches, who then transfer that pressure onto athletes.
Accordingly, it is time to not only point fingers at coaches, but also give them training, guidance and support. They need to education on what the building blocks of a healthy coach-athlete relationship are, on which behaviours to adopt and which ones to avoid in order to foster that healthy relationship, on issues affecting athletes' mental health and the list goes on. It is time to give them the right framework and to provide them with resources they can turn to when in doubt, resources that are co‑developed, resources that support their own mental health. Giving coaches a framework and taking care of their needs will help bring about culture change and improve their ability to cope with the pressure on their shoulders.
In conclusion, a number of actions are necessary to create the conditions for healthy and safe sport in Canada. They include reviewing the funding system, educating the public and members of the sport community to change the norm and culture, training coaches and giving them resources, adopting an approach that puts the well-being of athletes and coaches first, listening to athletes, and empowering them to create their own optimal training conditions. The current funding model produces medals in the short term, but at a cost: athletes' long-term mental and physical health. The research shows that similar results can be obtained and just as many medals can be won without sacrificing athletes' health. The science tells us that building a healthy sport environment, one driven by the well-being of athletes rather than athletic performance, produces equally good—and in the long term, better—results. It's time to stop following our old instincts and doing things the traditional way. Instead, we need to embrace science and apply the knowledge we have.
We must resist the temptation to focus on what we can readily see—like performance—and start focusing on what we can't. We can achieve the same results when we make that switch. It's time to ask federations to bring visibility to factors that have generally been overlooked: athletes' well-being, the purpose behind involvement in sport, skill development and so forth. It's time to focus on the long-term development of athletes and to give sport stakeholders the time and space they need to do things right. Bear in mind that results are nothing more than a consequence of doing things well. They should never be the end goal.
:
Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my observations pertaining to the critical issue of safe sport in Canada.
McLaren Global Sport Solutions, or MGSS as it is known, focuses on investigations and governance reviews of organizations in Canada and globally. Our work relates to a variety of integrity issues, including safe sport, the use of performance-enhancing drugs, competition manipulation, fraud, other forms of corruption and the overarching governance integrity issues arising therefrom.
I hold appointments as the independent integrity officer for the International Basketball Federation, FIBA, and the International Boxing Association, IBA, and as the chief anti-corruption officer for professional tennis worldwide. I also am the independent third party for Table Tennis Canada.
Over my career I have led complex investigations involving corruption in international boxing, weightlifting, and many other sports, including investigations for the World Anti-Doping Agency, which revealed state-sponsored doping of athletes by Russia at the Sochi Olympics and in a number of Russian sports, particularly athletics.
One recent example of my international work in safe sport involved a complex investigation of sexual allegations against basketball and state officials in Mali, following reports by Human Rights Watch that were published in the New York Times. My team conducted a comprehensive independent investigation focused on the systemic sexual abuse of young female basketball players. That report and all our other reports are public and are published on my company's website.
My international experience is important to share with you because, unfortunately, safe sport is an international issue, not simply a Canadian one. Consider, for example, that in the sport of gymnastics there have been no fewer than six major national reviews into the sport, including those in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, the Netherlands and, of course, the United States, with which most members of the committee, I'm sure, are familiar.
Let me turn to two examples of recent work in Canada by MGSS, namely our 2022 independent review of Canada Soccer, and our 2023 report on Gymnastics Canada. We also did a report in 2021 on how to establish a national independent safe sport agency in Canada.
With Canada Soccer we were tasked to review the institutional response to harassment allegations made in 2008 against former U-20 women's national team coach Bob Birarda. The members of this committee are familiar with this saga through the courageous testimony of Andrea Neil and others. We found that Canada Soccer had fairly robust policies and investigation procedures at the time. However, there was little attention paid to safe sport amongst the executive ranks and the CSA, which did not follow its own written policies.
The joint investigation of Birarda conducted in 2008 by Canada Soccer and Major League Soccer's Vancouver Whitecaps was severely flawed. For example, no written report was issued by the investigator and no minutes were created of any of the processes or decisions made by the CSA's board of directors. There was no transparency, a flaw we have found repeatedly in sport. Reasonable policies are not enforced.
On the recommendation of the investigator, the CSA executive committee voted to terminate Birarda in October 2008. However, rather than terminating him, there was a negotiated exit. Birarda was allowed to submit a resignation, which was characterized by the CSA as a mutual parting of ways. The real reasons for his sudden departure were couched as being personal in a press conference at which some of the female complainants were present and definitely knew otherwise. Exiting “for personal reasons” is a frequently used euphemism to hide improper conduct and to avoid follow-up actions.
Such an approach, regrettably, is common in sport. The record and the real reasons for termination are hidden, thanks to the negotiated exit by resignation. It also allows the perpetrator to inflict abuse in future positions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I have been Égale Action's director of gender equity for a year now.
I'd like to start by mentioning that Égale Action has been around for more 20 years. We work to ensure equity and equality for women and girls within Quebec's sport system and to help them develop their full potential.
When it comes to safe sport in Canada, the first thing I would say is that victim protection must continue to be the priority, and rightfully so. That means maintaining and strengthening mechanisms such as support hotlines and the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. Also needed are better tools to prevent abuse and violence of any kind in sport, at all levels and in all forms of participation.
The second thing I would say is that sport organizations have to put measures in place. That's what we, at Égale Action, focus on. I have no doubt that all of us would welcome a decreased demand for telephone hotlines. That means doing the groundwork to change the unsafe culture. That work involves raising awareness, examining the individual sport communities by building organizational profiles, and introducing strategies that will lead to meaningful actions and the desired results.
The organization officials who reach out to us have good intentions but sometimes lack resources. They need guidance and jointly developed solutions. That's why organizations like Quebec's Égale Action are needed. They are neutral parties that provide support and guidance to sport federations and organizations.
Now I'd like to share some helpful measures. Much of the support we provide is in the form of mentorship. That includes not just support for issues analysis and strategy and plan deployment, but also the delivery of training workshops to foster greater awareness of the corporate culture and biases.
Of course, it's not all about a single member of an organization and their desire to take action. One of the barriers we run into involves an organization's capacity and resources, not to mention the time it invests in bringing about change. Keep in mind it still has to focus on day-to-day concerns and responsibilities.
We also believe that it's important to continue supporting and empowering women to increase their presence in sport organizations. In Quebec, women make up 33% of board members. Hopefully, that is thanks to the efforts made in recent years, and we want to see that progress continue. However, women account for a mere 19% of coaches in Quebec. Coaches are, after all, the people in a position of immediate authority in athletes' lives. Despite the introduction of programs to support coaches, the proportion of women coaches has not changed.
The services we provide to support and assist women are aimed at increasing the presence of women in sport, of course, but above all, at making sure their voices are heard. Establishing communities of practice is one way we hope to help women move past the doubt and gain the confidence they need to join organizations and assert their place in the sport system.
Finally, a range of policies are necessary to bring about lasting change. Putting an assessment mechanism in place is imperative in order to measure the actions and progress that will lead to culture change. It will then be possible to build a framework and parameters for organizations, and to steer them in a different direction as needed. This will ensure that they are accountable to their members and political institutions, and provide an accurate picture of their progress.
In Quebec, a recently created research lab is now part of the support ecosystem, Lab PROFEMS, and we are fortunate to have the director with us today.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for inviting me. This is my third appearance before a parliamentary committee. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the process aimed at improving the sport system.
As Ms. Béliveau mentioned, I'm here in my capacity as director of Laboratoire de recherche pour la progression des femmes dans les sports au Québec, a new research lab focused on advancing women in sport in Quebec. Accordingly, my remarks will focus on the importance of research, which can help bring more equality and equity to the sport system, and above all, make it safer for everyone.
I want to draw something to the committee's attention. Canada was fortunate to have the first gender equity in sport research hub from 2020 to 2022, but unfortunately, it received only two years' worth of funding. I had the pleasure of co-directing the hub with Gretchen Kerr, whom you've no doubt heard from on the issue of safe sport. It's really a shame that the research hub was funded for such a short time. We had started building the mechanisms to support the sport system and help you, as politicians, make informed, evidenced-based decisions.
Research should be the cornerstone of any initiative. Whenever a measure is introduced, or a mechanism or solution deployed, the ability to carry out an evaluation and determine the impact is key.
Ms. Bookal, the first witness you heard from today, shared a quote with the committee. I, too, have a quote for you. It comes from an eminent researcher by the name of Einstein. He said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I think that's often been the case in Canada. People think they have good ideas, so they implement them. My first message to the committee is this: go by the research. When you introduce a measure, you have to be able to evaluate it.
My colleague Ms. Carpentier talked about what we've learned from the research. It's been shown that, when more women are in leadership positions, violence and harassment rates drop rapidly, not only in sport, but also in a number of areas. That is true of the workplace, the prison system and elsewhere in Canada. In fact, the increased number of female prison guards has almost led to the elimination of physical violence in federal prisons.
The literature shows that the more women there are in a given setting, the better the conditions in that setting. Ms. Béliveau mentioned the percentage of women coaches in Canada. It's a similar situation globally. Athletes are trained predominantly by men, who account for nearly 80% of coaches, more in some sports.
I cannot stress enough that, first and foremost, research is key.
Second, we need to pay close attention to accountability. Some of my fellow witnesses spoke about that. Funding has to be tied to accountability. That requires an organization to support data collection. Again, this ties in with research. If the government decided to invest anew in the Gender Equity in Sport Research Hub, as I hope it will, the hub could oversee that accountability, as an impartial and independent organization, helping to inform funding policies and decisions.
I quite appreciated what my colleague Ms. Carpentier said. As she pointed out, when funding is tied solely to performance and when the winning of medals is all that matters, athletes will continue to experience abuse. Make no mistake.
The last point I want to make was also raised by Ms. Béliveau.
:
I agree with the last speaker's point. Accountability is a significant problem. Many sports have reasonably robust policies, but they don't use them. They remain unenforced. I have seen that repeatedly in work I have done in Canada and overseas. Accountability is a major problem.
Another problem, which nobody has mentioned this morning, is whistle-blowing. In order to conduct many investigations, as I've done, you need to have whistle-blowers, and whistle-blowers have big issues about retaliation in many different forms. This country has, in both the corporate world and also in the sports world, very limited whistle-blower protection legislation of any kind. We're way behind Europe and other countries in the world in that area, so that is an important area to look at as well, and it ties back to accountability.
Another thing I was speaking about in my remarks is the exit negotiation excuse called “personal reasons” for somebody who has really committed improper conduct. Hiding the real reasons inhibits people who perhaps want to have this person do something in the future, because they don't ever find public information about the real reasons for departure. The worst part of that negotiated exit is the ability of the individual to go to a different sport or a different country—but particularly a different sport—and carry on the same abuse that has already been identified in other situations.
:
As I mentioned, there are existing global sport governance frameworks, such as the sports governance observer. These are benchmarking tools that enable organizations to improve governance by scoring on specific dimensions. You have transparency, democratic processes, societal responsibility, and internal accountability and control. These have been implemented as far back as 2011 in some European countries.
They work. These assessments ensure that organizations are advancing in the intended direction, and they also serve as a supportive process to support the objective of fostering ethical growth. With these audits, entities can be held to a higher standard of accountability, because you are requiring them to maintain and hopefully improve their capacity in a way that can be measured, in a way that can be assessed. Transparency, including the aforementioned athlete's anonymous feedback and employee feedback, also allows the public, including Canadian taxpayers, parents, athletes and media, to determine if the leadership is effectively doing its job.
Just to corroborate what Ms. Demers said, I would like to add that in some nations, public funding is conditional on compliance with good governance principles, and, for all audits, sport organizations have absolutely no say in who is doing their audit.
:
I'm not sure what happened in the shift. As I said, in the 1990s, many things were accessible. Costs were down, so coaching courses were affordable for people to take. It was also all mandatory.
When it came down to competition, everybody wanted that gold. Everybody wanted to be number one in the world. What we would hear from the grassroots level was, “Being a first world country, why aren't we in the top five? Why aren't we in the top three? How come other countries that don't have as many resources as us are beating us?”
We just started seeing the shift of a lot of funding going towards high performance. Less and less was happening on the amateur sports side. When people look at the sporting funnel system, you have to get your athletes from somewhere. That somewhere is amateur sports. That funnel is now getting smaller and smaller. Many people can't afford sports.
To get these high-profile coaches, or to help pay athletes, some of these sporting organizations put that cost in the coach certification programs. To take one class, it's $300. Many people can't afford that.
:
I have definitely witnessed it and experienced it. Unfortunately, everybody can say they want to be more diverse. In hiring, people are saying they want to put in place anti-racism, or have more minorities in certain positions to represent our country. People's actions are not matching their words.
For example, we have 63 NSO leaders right now, and three of them are from a minority group. That's out of 63. People keep saying there aren't many minorities to hire in certain positions, but when minorities do apply for positions, they say, “Well, you don't have enough experience in the sports sector.” They're saying one thing and doing another. It hasn't been matching.
The only reason I keep doing what I'm doing is to really help bring a voice to it. I'm that voice for people who can't sit at that table right now. I'm hoping we can definitely see change by bringing back some of the programs that worked in the 1990s. That's when sport was for all, and everybody felt included.
:
I'm going to jump back in.
I've done a bit of research. I've seen British Columbia, Manitoba and other provinces put in anti-racism strategies through their PlaySafe strategies. Manitoba, I think, just announced a couple of weeks ago an investment into an anti-racism strategy.
You talked about your organization's anti-racism strategy. I also noticed anti-racism in sport and Sport for Life. Based on a bit of research I've done, there has been a federal commitment to invest into programs to combat systemic racism.
From your perspective, are provincial and federal governments doing enough, or is there a lot more work to do when it comes to investing in organizations and looking for ways to combat systemic racism?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to start with you Ms. Bragagnolo.
Thank you very much for your opening remarks. Thank you, as well, for everything you're doing and the model you represent.
First, I'd like to know where you stand on an independent public inquiry into abuse in sport? What elements should such an inquiry focus on?
By the way, do you see a difference between an inquiry and an investigation? In French, we use the same word—enquête—for both, but there's a difference in English. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that.
:
For the inquiry, as per my recommendations, I strongly believe we need to begin with commencing independent sport governance audits. I believe the government made a commitment or said in the past that it would audit our NSOs and sport entities, but it has not done so. I believe that is a priority and an immediate must.
Again, this cannot be done by any current sport entity in Canada right now. It must be done by an entity outside of sport. I believe that we should be using the existing sport governance frameworks that are proven and effective and have been tested globally.
I believe that these governance audits must include anonymous athlete and employee feedback. Athletes have long been ignored, and they provide very important feedback and insight into the current existing vulnerabilities, risks and opportunities.
Again, things can look perfect on paper, as Mr. McLaren said. The policies look good, but anonymous feedback helps us ensure that these policies, procedures and people are fit for purpose and that they actually work. It shows us where we need to evolve them.
With transparent audits, we are able to hold people and organizations accountable in a way that can be measured and assessed. I think in the inquiry we can finally commence that. That's something that we should have been doing for 10 years. As I mentioned, this has been going on in Europe for over a decade.
We are grossly behind, and I believe that the inquiry would be a great place to start that.
:
I think that independent governance audits should be required for Canada's sport, for the reporting mechanisms and for these for-profit safe sport entities. Basically, any entity seeking to work within sport in this capacity has to be held to greater accountability.
Even with good intention, a lack of professional capacity, a conflict of interest or a lack of independence will hinder the ethical evolution of Canadian safe sport and appropriate athlete care. Alleged wrongdoing, investigations, inquiries and support systems need to be handled impartially by accountable professionals who have the required competence and necessary training, and who do not have any history surrounding the enabling of abuse or corruption at any level in sport.
There are, as Mr. McLaren said, individuals in sport who have seemingly credible reputations on paper, but who have been involved in the enabling of abuse, have been abusive or are not fit for purpose and are currently trying to profit off integrity and rebrand as “safe sport experts”. They are working right now within sport entities or consulting firms in the realm of safe sport.
To mitigate these entities, any group seeking to work within safe sport ought to be held to greater accountability by audit.
This is not just a Canadian problem. My colleagues in Brazil, Colombia, Australia and the U.S. corroborate that we have to prepare for this risk.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for their extremely important input.
As everyone knows, national sport organizations are in crisis—Hockey Canada, Soccer Canada and the list goes on.
I have some questions for Ms. Béliveau, Ms. Carpentier and Dr. Demers, and I would appreciate it if they could keep their answers as short as possible.
First, are you in favour of a national public inquiry to take a deep dive into issues affecting safe sport in Canada?
Second, do you think Sport Canada should continue to fund organizations like Hockey Canada even when they don't necessarily meet all of the objectives required to keep the public and athletes safe?
Third, Hockey Canada continues to sign non-disclosure agreements with victims. Do you think that's right, or do you think victims should not be forced to sign such agreements?
:
As I mentioned, some countries already require compliance with good governance standards as a condition for funding. I absolutely think that is something that needs to be considered.
Regarding non-reporting, the research I did with my colleague Yanei Lezama was on sextortion around sport. We asked questions about non-reporting. We wanted to know why people were not reporting.
Just for clarity, sextortion is the abuse of power for sexual benefit. If people abuse their position and ask for money, we look at that as corruption, but if they abuse their position and ask for sex or sexual favours, it's not always recognized as corruption. Charges or sanctions aren't brought forward.
With that known, as I mentioned, fewer than one in five survivors report their incident to a reporting mechanism. We wanted to know why. In terms of the top reasons that survivors did not disclose, 60% said they did not trust that anything would be done by their organization to help them; 59% said they did not trust that their perpetrator would be punished; and 52% said they were concerned that reporting would negatively impact their career. This highlights the overall lack of trust in our sport institutions. That trust must be earned.
Just to follow up on what Ms. Bookal said, at the grassroots level we found that with sextortion specifically, the risk is much higher. In Canada this is a significantly underserved area, as current attention and resources have gone to and are primarily focused on the elite level. For indigenous respondents, community-based sport was the most-reported level for survivor victims, nearly doubling the risk of their white counterparts.
:
Yes, I think it emphasizes the importance of independence in our reporting mechanisms. As some of my other colleagues have mentioned, it's the importance of whistle-blowing protection as well.
The leading research in sexual harassment in sport highlights that harassment and abuse appear to be higher at the elite level. When referring to sextortion specifically, our results show that it's happening to the same degree in grassroots sport. This is an area in which we are significantly underserved here in Canada. Our current reporting mechanism is not able and does not have the capacity to help this group of people. The resources are completely in another direction.
For BIPOC respondents specifically, they were two times more concerned about career repercussions if they reported, so they did not report. Eighty-one per cent of our BIPOC respondents listed it as their number one reason for not reporting. That's compared to 34% of those who identified as white. Not only are we not seeing a lot of trust in our system, but we're also seeing that the most vulnerable people in our community are suffering immensely.
Again, independence is of crucial importance here.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. McLaren, I first want to express my appreciation for your testimony today. I must say that your appearance before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women had raised a question in my mind. On the issue of non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, I was under the impression that your reports leaned more towards protecting organizations.
What can we do to minimize the cover-ups and avoidance by executives, and particularly those at Soccer Canada? People like Mr. Montagliani, Mr. Montopoli, Mr. Reed, or Mr. Bontis may have used elements of your report to buy time and a better public image, rather than to change things in their organization. It may be that while a report is in progress, public opinion has time to move on. When it comes to real action, however, we're still waiting.
What do you think about this situation?
:
Well, I'm not quite sure how to answer your question, sir.
There's no doubt that sports administrators often try to protect themselves rather than have a greater objective of what the sport administration and the sporting body are absolutely there to do and are trying to do.
However, when it comes to work that I do, like investigative work.... I had this conversation with the board of Canada Soccer. I was unwilling to do any work with them unless any work that I did was totally put into the public domain after it was completed. I had to actually appear before the board to persuade them that this was the right way to go, and eventually they agreed with that, so my report is totally in the public domain. I wouldn't have done the work if it was not. I think, when you're doing independent work, that's an important feature to remember: Make sure it has to be made public.
However, even so, yes, sports administrators can take the report. If they give you a long enough period of time, people may lose interest in the particular issues that you're looking at. I don't think that's true of some of the topics we're talking about today with respect to safe sport; I don't think people lose interest. With some other forms of corruption—fraud, etc.—yes, that happens.
I think that the best way for that to not happen.... I've forgotten which of our witnesses said this, but education about governance and the role of being on one of these boards is a very important thing. It is generally not provided to members of sporting boards, and it should be, so that they learn their obligations, including bringing their own integrity to the process and not using the process to hide and protect themselves.
That's the best I can do for an answer, sir.
:
Ms. Bookal and Mr. McLaren, I'd like to come back to both of you.
Ms. Bookal, we know that organizations like Hockey Canada made commitments to combat racism within their national sports organization. It did not meet those obligations, yet funding is streaming to Hockey Canada as we speak.
These are the kinds of issues that I think are very frustrating. If we know that racialized victims are less comfortable reporting crimes that occur, this is something that, as a society, we need to combat. However, we have a very porous financing structure, and Sport Canada basically gives money out even if organizations aren't meeting their obligations.
I'll come back to.... Do you feel that national sports organizations should be meeting their obligations before they receive public funding? Do you feel, as well, that a public inquiry is warranted, so that we can get to the bottom of all these issues that have permeated sports and created a sporting crisis in this country over the last few years?
:
Yes, I believe that a public inquiry or a report card, if you want to call it that....
We've said it a couple of times. When you look at countries like the United Kingdom, the United States, New Zealand and Australia, they all do report cards on their NSOs or their respective organizations. They post them publicly. It's not like they're held in private where people cannot see them. They give a report card. It's posted so they can see exactly where the sport organization stands. It's not just with anti-racism, but we're talking about across the whole EDI sector, including where they stand with equality, inclusion and everything from that end.
Also, in one country—I can't remember off the top of my head—they have to set yearly goals. They have to attain those yearly goals. If they don't attain the yearly goals, they have to explain publicly why it was not done.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is interesting.
Do we blow up Sport Canada? They're part of the problem here. They know first-hand. They were told by Gymnastics Canada that they had an issue. They were told by Hockey Canada that they had an issue, and they did nothing. The funding should have been pulled from Hockey Canada in 2018, and it wasn't.
What do we do with Sport Canada? It's almost like, what do we do with OSIC?
Mr. McLaren, I'll go to you. You've hit it right on. The grassroots couldn't care less about the provincial bodies, and the provincial bodies couldn't care less about the national bodies.
Here you have OSIC gobbling up lots of money. Realistically, all they have to worry about would be the national bodies, because I know the provincial authorities couldn't care less about OSIC or grassroots either. You've mentioned it, and I've talked about it for a long time here.
This is the problem we have in sports in the country, where grassroots couldn't care less about provincial authorities and vice versa. That's a problem we have in this country right now. It's a deep problem.
Mr. McLaren, comment on that.
:
I agree with you. It's a major problem that's been part of all the work that I've done in Canada and have observed.
The funding that OSIC has, for example, can go only to the elite, high-performance athletes who are under the governorship and control authority of the national sporting organization. They don't have the authority to go any further.
There are some mechanisms by which you could develop a grassroots, club, provincial and federal national body structure and buy into a much better system than what we have, but that would have to come from the bottom up. It can't come from the top down. That's the problem. The top down doesn't have the authority or the jurisdiction. Many of our sporting bodies nationally don't get along well with their provincial.... That problem carries on all the way down the chain from there.
We should look for good examples of clubs, provincial organizations and national—there are a couple—that operate well and effectively, and try to encourage that. That's the way out of that problem, I think.
:
Yes. I think something that's worth mentioning is the need for, again, accountability but also the appropriate capacity of those in boards and those running NSOs. At any level, to eliminate and address this, there's a need for interdisciplinary teams who should be undertaking these safe sport investigations, audits, inquiries and reporting mechanisms.
By interdisciplinary teams, I mean those that include independent sport governance experts; certified, registered mental health professionals; and human rights legal professionals. These kinds of people are crucial, but it is not common practice here. Advanced specific expertise is required to help with these kinds of assessments, but having a law degree or having extensive experience in governance or being an athlete does not necessarily equate to appropriate expertise in handling abuse and allegations in a trauma-informed, survivor-centric manner, especially if your governance experience is solely in a system that has been broken.
I think these governance audits will help determine the capacity and also help these organizations to evolve and realize where some of their holes are—for example, the lack of registered certified mental health professionals, the lack of ethicists on ethics committees, and the lack of sports governance and independent professionals; or, if entities are hired, they're not considering gender mainstreaming or intersectionality and don't represent that in their practice.
These are all current problems in the Canadian sport landscape. We can use interdisciplinary experts to help us assess these types of governance audits to make sure people who are running our sport are able to do so—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think in 15 minutes we're already into halfway through the voting time, but I'll go quickly.
Mr. McLaren, if I read the media, it's sort of a national disaster if the Toronto Maple Leafs don't win their first round, having not won since 2004.
Having watched the last one in 1967, I will ask this: When you say to change the culture here—and we've heard that said—how do we change it? To me, when you see the headlines about how the Toronto Maple Leafs live and die, and that the city is done for if they don't win the first round, this is huge in the sense of culture and pressure.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. McLaren, by naming the whistleblowers, your report will also have directed attention to the victims. Now, the experts have spoken about the importance of preserving the anonymity of victims, given the trauma that can be caused to them. They also talked about the importance of treating victims fairly and offering them certain services.
Given the advice of these experts, do you have any regrets about confidentiality?
What recommendations would you make to preserve the anonymity of victims and protect them, while ensuring that you get their testimony and participation in the various reporting or investigative processes to shed light on the events?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think it's important that we have, as I mentioned, certified registered mental health professionals involved.
As well, I think the number of sports lawyers in the Canadian system is overlooked. I would argue that human rights lawyers would be better equipped to handle abuse cases, due to their specialized knowledge in areas such as gender-based violence, discrimination and human rights violations.
Additionally, they may approach cases from a broader perspective that takes into account gender mainstreaming and intersectionality and also looks at the root causes—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. McLaren, you probably saw the testimony by Steven Reed a few days ago at committee. I was shocked—I think all members of the committee were shocked—to hear that he felt completely powerless to stop, in any way, a convicted sexual offender, Bob Birarda, from accessing more victims.
Do you believe that is true, that people in positions of responsibility are powerless to stop these perpetrators, these offenders, from accessing victims? What would you suggest that we might ask Canada Soccer president Charmaine Crooks, when she comes, as she has been summoned to, this Thursday?