:
Good morning, everyone.
I'd like to start this meeting. I will chair the full two hours here this morning.
I welcome everyone to meeting 85 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded, traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. 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.
We have a number of guests on video conference.
You will see on the lower right side of your screen a globe, and that is for interpretation—English and French—and you make your choice on that, Kelly and Rebecca, as you are on video conference here with us today.
For the first hour, we have Kristen Worley, a former elite athlete and advocate. She's with us live.
Thank you, Kristen.
We also have, from My Voice, My Choice, Kelly Favro by video conference, the co-founder, and Jessica Gaertner, advocate.
Moreover, from The Spirit of Trust, we have Rebecca Khoury, the founder. She is also here by video conference.
The three groups will have five minutes each to start their presentation.
Ms. Worley, you may now proceed with your five-minute opening statement. Thank you.
It's an honour to be here today as a participant in the standing committee's review on safe sport in Canada, as a recognized survivor by the International Olympic Committee, sharing my lived experience from over two decades on and off the field of play.
My experience is about abuse, trauma, maltreatment, collusion, the use of wilful blindness, the lack of state responsibility, gross liability, brand protection and foreign interference, while validating the importance of civil courts and tribunals in Canadian sport to ensure the independent access to remedies.
In 2005, I would be the first athlete in the world to be gender tested under the IOC's policy, where I would be violated as a predetermination of my participation in cycling. Canada is a signatory to the Olympic Movement, which is found in Canada's sport system. They felt they could, that they had a right, and I deserved it, while they knew nothing.
The IOC is given blind trust under the autonomy of sport under which the IOC operates, guiding and regulating sport federations.
In 2008, realizing Canada had no connection to the leadership of the IOC, I personally convened a conference call with the leadership of Canadian sport and the IOC. Dr. Patrick Schamasch, who was unable to answer the medical questions, as one of the authors, became flustered, admitting that the IOC had never done any research for the published policy. In that moment, Ottawa realized they'd raped me.
Justice and Sport Canada, collectively, did no due diligence upholding the state obligation in respect of protecting and fulfilling human rights as a result of international customary human rights law, before adopting a policy from a foreign entity.
The cover-up would come fast and furious from employees of Sport Canada, the CCES, Cycling Canada, COC members, CEOs of the UCI, and even a cease and desist order from WADA's CEO John Fahey. I've never met John Fahey.
They blacklisted me to prevent the world from knowing what they had done and what I knew. A united front from Ottawa, Montreal to Lausanne, their sole intent was to protect the IOC from “civil, human rights exposure and consequential impact to the Olympic brand”, preserving at all cost the autonomous structure within which they operate outside the civil law and society as a whole—a behaviour familiar to the mob.
The IOC is a not a sporting organization; they are a brokerage business in sporting event management and do not run a single sport. The COC is a marketing franchisee, controlling the IOC's business channels in the Canadian marketplace selling the idealism of Olympism—utilizing the autonomous system.
By 2014, I would walk away from elite sport as my body had completely failed me. I decoupled myself from their autonomy. The next action I sought was expertise from CAS. They stated, “We are not a court of law and such cases need to be heard within civil courts and human rights tribunals.” They directed me to seek expertise in civil law and human rights.
I would seek legal counsel in Toronto on June 30, 2015, where the IOC, UCI, Cycling Canada, Cycling Ontario would be served...and WADA was subsequently served in January 2016 as a fifth respondent.
Thomas Bach would directly attack the survivor, suggesting that if I were successful “It would impact IOC's Swiss sovereignty, impacting the future Olympic movement”, and that “this was a sport issue and should be heard at the CAS.” Bach knew I had found the Achilles' heel. The IOC argued jurisdictional reach, and the HRTO denied their application.
The IOC's next step was inconceivable, “choosing to alter the policy without research” as a legal scheme to mitigate liability within a court system where they could no longer politicize nor control the outcome. They had to come with science, which they didn't have.
By pushing them outside the autonomous system, they were made to care. Ottawa, including the broadcasting licensee of the Olympic games, the CBC, remained silent, limiting public awareness of the IOC's presence in Canada. I would go it alone. The IOC would focus to hit the survivor with a bigger hammer.
On February 29, 2016, in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, the IOC would present their policy into evidence, which was firmly rejected. They would lose the day and be ordered to appear in the HRTO with all the other respondents.
The IOC would hide, from sport, the outcome in Toronto, in an unsupported policy that would remain in place for five years, leading to worldwide consequence in sport and society, due to the IOC's concerns of statement against interest and impact to their brand.
The WADA lawyer at the HRTO proceedings weeks later said “We thought...Ms. Worley was going to give up.” They miscalculated the will of a survivor.
Their focus was to play a long game, utilizing the shield of the autonomy from the liability. Inevitably we would be successful preventing future physical harm and trauma experiences across the sporting globe.
Paul Melia, a panellist at the AthletesCAN safe sport meeting back in April 2019, chose the word “pioneer” when he confronted me in person, in an effort to relieve his anxieties as an abuser stating that I would never forget what he did to me, and I would have to live with it for the rest of my life.
Abuse in Canada's sport is systemic across the system in various forms. Indeed, “the autonomous system allows career abusers to reinvent themselves without accountability or oversight.”
By being here today in person, it was important to speak truth to power and for my own closure and not to live the life that Mr. Melia intended, releasing me from the carousel that they have kept me beholden to, while ensuring from this day forward that it never happens to anyone else of any age, at any level of sport participation in Canada.
Thank you.
My name is Jessica. I'm an advocate for sexual assault survivors. I'm certified in trauma-informed practice and I hold a first-class honours degree in law. This is the first time I've advocated for myself.
My decision to be here today was not taken lightly. I made a choice between reaching a resolution with Hockey Canada via the ITP or using My Voice to stand beside Canadian athletes to plead with the government to help victims.
I don't want to see more half-hearted pity. I want change. I have significant concerns that the ITP process will cause many like me to consider rescinding and retracting complaints. It is not trauma-informed, or even trauma-respectful, and it greatly jeopardizes true legal processes. What good does that do?
I'm not an athlete, but I lodged a complaint to BC Hockey in 2021. The response was pathetic. I had no confidence in their ability to handle historical sexual assault complaints. The ITP accepted the complaint last year, but only because my husband, a coach and Hockey Canada member for over 18 years, interacts with the respondent in his work—not simply because the respondent is a member himself.
I was provided with very little information on how this process would go. Had I known, I would not have agreed to it. I have a very short time, so I will try to fit all of this in.
I was told that if the victim is not “in hockey” the misconduct policy may not apply and that survivor support services are not available to non-members.
My identity was not protected. My name and the allegation were simply emailed to the respondent with no safety or risk assessment carried out. You cannot lean on your support system, or speak about the process. I was left vulnerable and exposed. I was discouraged from reporting to the police until the investigation had finished, despite frequently stating I wished to do so.
The interviews were antagonistic to the point of bringing me to tears, cutting me off, speaking over me. There are significant risks of evidence contamination, with each party's evidence and responses relayed back and forth over several interviews and sometimes via email. It lacks integrity. But perhaps that is the point: The fine print suggests that the ITP and Hockey Canada are one and the same, after all.
The ITP deemed it appropriate to hold a hearing between the parties in which the respondent would receive submissions and disclosures of evidence and have the opportunity to directly ask questions of me. This is a sexual assault case. No matter how much I protest and tell them how harmful this is, they push for the victim to attend a meeting with the alleged assailant to talk it out. This is nothing short of cruel. They operate as a pseudo court without the legislative or personal protections. Victims are faced with a wall of lawyers and risk managers attempting to distance Hockey Canada from liability and the imbalance of protecting a respondent's unqualified right to participate in sport with that of protecting athletes and victims from harm.
There have been multiple people involved in this ITP process, none of whom are there to advocate or support victims, but all of them continue to profit from our trauma. The system has not changed. It is all the same people under different and entities and process, all conflicted by their own affiliations and personal interests. They may call it safe sport and sport integrity, but it is anything but.
Survivors are tired of fighting the system from every angle, but this one shouldn't be so hard.
I'll turn it over to Kelly.
My name is Kelly Favro and I'm a survivor of sexual violence. I can only tell you this because I represented myself in BC Supreme Court in June 2021 where I won the right to say my name and identify myself as a victim in my own story.
I am here today because I have lived experience of how legally silencing complainants of sexual violence through publication bans or NDAs can have unintended consequences and how this can affect safe sport. Despite our being told that publication bans and NDAs are in our best interests, both carry thousands of dollars in fines or penalties, or possibly jail time should a victim breach a gag order.
It's important to note here that my perpetrator is not a member of any organized sports league, safe sport or Hockey Canada, but publication bans and their effects are not limited to those outside of professional athletics. David Shoemaker, the CEO of the Canadian Olympic Committee, testified here on June 1 that they do criminal record checks and have a selection committee that validates that.
Safe sport relies on criminal record checks to tell them if someone's been convicted of a sexual offence or crime, but those are only performed every three years, and they should be performed annually. It doesn't say anything about charges or arrests for sexual offences unless they work with vulnerable persons, and even then the victim would have to be a minor for it to show up. For those who don't have convictions, publication bans and NDAs prevent victims from filing complaints to members of safe sport.
Safe sport is operating in a similar manner to court systems in silencing victims with confidentiality agreements that prevent complainants from speaking to anyone about the complaint other than to seek legal advice or NDAs that are enforced upon parties once resolution is provided, thus preventing them from talking about it or even finding out if there are other victims of the same perpetrator. When someone reports someone for abuse, it is not the first time that person has abused someone, it's just the first time they've been reported. Trauma-informed approaches in working with victims and survivors of sexual violence needs to be higher on the safe sport to-do list.
There is a culture of silence, secrecy, privilege and protection surrounding the sexual abuses that take place in sports within Canada.
Good morning, everyone. Thank you once again for the opportunity to be part of this crucial study on safe sport in Canada.
The world of sport is in crisis. Canadian sport is in crisis. Make no mistake. Abuse in sports in all its forms is a systemic crisis, and it requires our immediate and undivided attention. Harm has already occurred and it's continuing to occur today. It will continue to occur tomorrow. We must act now, because now we know, and we must start taking care of our people now.
We know that as many as 70% of participants in sports will fall victim to at least one form of abuse during their sporting journey. The last record of sport participants in Canada dates from 2016 and stood at eight million people. Of that, 70% is 5.6 million people harmed.
Let that number sink in for a second or two. That's 5.6 million people harmed.
Put together all of the stories you've heard first-hand here, the ones you've just heard today, in the media and through friends and family. Even if we were to add the thousands of people who signed the petitions to request a national inquiry into sport—which should happen, actually—we are nowhere close to the actual number of people harmed in sport, with absolutely no end in sight and certainly no holistic solution on the table. “Urgency” doesn't even begin to describe the gravity of the systemic crisis we are facing.
I'm here today before you as the founder of The Spirit of Trust. It's the only charitable organization in the world that has developed a blueprint for a holistic and scalable model of care with a dedicated focus on empowering, supporting and safely guiding all survivors of any type of abuse in sport on their transformational journey.
We must start taking care of our people now. Won't you be part of that solution with us?
Let me tell you about our “why”. Why do we think we need an organization like The Spirit of Trust? It's because we wished we'd had it when we all went through our issues.
There's this urgent need to build capacity to empower the largest number of survivors on their paths to recovery. We're going to be able to do two things at once with this model of care. Number one, heal the past and present survivors in order to, number two, prevent the harm in the future. Healing is the best form of prevention.
We must exist because healing survivors has always been a non-negotiable part of the safe sport agenda, and it must be delivered independently from the sporting systems.
We must exist because the imbalance of powers must be addressed. Empowering, guiding and supporting survivors will be key for the scales to finally start to shift.
We must exist because we need to decrease the hardship on all survivors. We will build trust, foster hope and save lives.
What we know about healing from trauma is that it's a lifelong journey. It's a unique path for each and every one of us, but we have one common thread. It's us, the survivors. Whether it's Myriam, Amelia, Katherine, Guylaine, Kelly today, Trinea, Kristen, Jon or Ryan, it doesn't matter. The commonality is our lived experience. The key's to create safe and professional spaces to foster that human connection that will build trust, foster hope and save lives.
At the centrepiece of our scalable model of care there are evidence-based, holistic, survivor-led and expert-driven programs and tools that are developed, built and delivered for, with and by survivors. More specifically, they model the peer support concept that's very successfully used in the military and other high-intensity industries. That's at the core of our offerings.
Whether survivors will use the individual or group model, virtually or in-person, or the survivor advocate accompanying someone through a complaint process, all of these paths will exist individually or be used in combination with each other. Peer support will build trust, foster hope and save lives.
We will be able to deliver that through our partnerships, research and protocols. All survivors wanting to support others will be screened and trained, as well as supported, to offer the safest model of care.
Who's in the team of superheroes behind these initiatives? There are a ton of us, and we're all from diverse backgrounds, but we share a mandatory combination of things. You heard some of them today. They are lived experience with expertise, and the trauma-informed and human-centred lens.
Each of us is driven by ethics and courage. I want to put emphasis on these two words. It's ethics and courage. We all believe in the same thing, which is that our model of care is a must, as we need to start taking care of our people now. We will build trust, foster hope and save lives. It's a game-changer.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
At the end of the day, the most important piece right now is to support the people who are going through these things. As we put all of the bigger brains around the table, we should be thinking about what's the best structure we need to have. How do we create the list of people with the offences? How can we do it with all of these privacy things? It doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, we need to support people now. Our concern is guiding and helping people through the process. At the federal level, it's that continuous conversation. If you want to have a system that exists outside civil courts, criminal courts, human rights courts, you have to have a system that makes sense and that is truly connected. If it's not connected, it's not even worth having the discussion.
There are pros and cons to having an insular system. You heard Kristen today. She told you about taking things out of the independence of sport. That's where you get better justice. That's where people are heard. Listen, you have people at high levels of football in France and Haiti, and I don't know where, and then they're moved around. They even have bigger roles in international federations. It's a complete cesspool.
At the end of the day, we must now support the people who are going through the harm. We have to accompany them. For us, at The Spirit of Trust, that's our focus. We are focusing on helping the people now. What can we do to help them navigate?
We should be part of the conversation to make a better system. Sure, yes. When we look at what everybody has been asking for months, this national inquiry, get the right people around the table, and ask the right questions and get to the right solutions. We don't want the band-aid ones, not the checklists. We need the right solutions that are going to change foundationally the culture that's going to be impacted. Everything starts from underneath. It leads from the top.
You have to have a way to change the culture to make sure that you're embedding human-centred and trauma-informed pieces in everything we do. It doesn't sit next to it; it sits within it. Like the diversity piece, it's not a checklist; it has to be embedded.
I don't know if I helped you at all, Mr. Lewis, with that question. It's really about supporting people now as they're going through all of these egregious processes. Jessica mentioned it. You sit here, and you have this army of lawyers in front of you. These are people who trying to protect their own, or cover their own, you know what.
To begin, I'd like to express my solidarity with the people back home affected by the wildfires, particularly those in Normétal and Saint-Lambert. I also stand with the people affected on the north shore, in northern Quebec, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and in northeastern Ontario. This situation affects me personally. I obviously intend to return to my region as of tomorrow, because I want to be there.
Before, though, I thought it was very important to be here in person.
When I heard the testimony of Ms. Da Silva Rondeau and Ms. McCormack, for example, I was particularly shocked to learn just how far organizations go to protect themselves.
I was pleased to receive an invitation from Laurel Collins, a member of the NDP, to attend a meeting with My Voice, My Choice, to discuss the process related to non-disclosure agreements and their adverse effects. That's where I met Ms. Favro and Ms. Gaertner.
As I told you before, I was particularly shocked by your testimony. I was impressed by your strength and prominence.
Thank you for being here today. I absolutely wanted to see you contribute to our study, given your expertise and your sensitivity.
I would like to address one particular point. It seems that the people involved in the complaint process are often lawyers. However, there are certain skills required when dealing with someone who has been a victim of a crime of this nature, and that element is missing.
You explained the importance of having an investigator or adjudicator who takes victims' trauma into account. Are their practices being properly monitored? Does it have enough oversight?
For example, the committee would have liked to hear Mr. Bard's testimony last week, but he did not appear. That said, can the sport community govern itself?
How are staff from the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner or the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada involved in this work?
How can lawyers be at the head of national sports organizations?
Finally, can you tell us about the dangers of contamination of evidence and conflicts of interest?
There's a real issue with the current system for survivors and victims coming forward where safety is non-negotiable. Most of us fear that seeking police or third party involvement can expose us and our families to retaliation, violence or other personal consequences for speaking out. The current system is really difficult to navigate with any sort of dignity. It's super retraumatizing, as well.
Historically and currently, there's a really bad track record of convicting those accused of sexual offences, despite statistics showing how common sexual offences are. When you have no trust in the system, it's really hard for people to come forward and put their trust in somebody else.
The accused also seems to have a lot more rights in any sort of legal process. Victim complainants are not provided with any sort of legal guidance or advice with respect to our rights, our options and where our participation level could be. We're not represented. We're technically no more than a witness to our crimes.
It's incredibly hard for those facing systemic barriers as well, such as those who are criminalized due to their race or religion, who don't speak English as a first language, who live with the threat of intimate partner violence or who live in poverty. There are a lot of key factors for why folks aren't coming forward.
We need to ensure that safe environments are established so that when somebody comes forward, they feel as if they're believed. They feel that they don't have to explain themselves 900 times to 900 different people. Folks need to have a choice and control in what happens with their name and their story.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank our witnesses for coming forward and for their courage as we struggle with ending the crisis that we're seeing in Canadian sports.
I'll start with you, Ms. Gaertner.
I was stunned, listening to your testimony, that your identity was not protected and you were forced to confront your abuser—the perpetrator. In what kind of dysfunctional, dystopian system , is a victim forced to confront their abuser?
Subsequent to that, of course, we know that with non-disclosure agreements, after victims are exposed they are then muzzled.
I wanted you to share with us, if you can, what kind of impact this ITP process has had on your mental health.
I have a second question.
For the last year, we've been meeting and I think there's been a consensus on the committee around pushing Hockey Canada. There have been mass resignations. They are supposedly rebuilding.
Do you have any more confidence in the organization now than you might have had previously?
:
Thank you for the question.
For the past four or five years, we've rushed things in order to come up with solutions, we've rushed to organize a meeting, we've brought together everyone in sport, we ask ourselves questions, then we draw up a list, and we say that we have the matter in hand. However, no one talks to one another, and the organizations that are set up to find solutions aren't the right ones. They aren't the right people around the table, they aren't asking the right questions, and they don't have the right skills. So we're not getting to the right solution.
So basically, no, I don't think it's going to do much. Why? Because, in its current form, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner is doing more harm than good. It's poorly set up, poorly thought out and poorly implemented. It creates more problems than it solves. We need to stop all this and think, so when we take action, the measures will be put in place properly—
:
I have ideas, but I think that most would definitely be above my pay grade.
First and foremost, you need a safe environment to be established for someone to come forward when speaking out. In terms of a database, or a registry that can be shared nationwide, there's software out there that would allow us to communicate—with me in B.C. and you guys in Ottawa. I'm confident there would be something that could be easily built by a tech company out there to make this database.
What I'd like to see within the database is that no matter how small the complaints, no matter how minor the complaints, they all need to be taken very seriously. If a person goes to apply for another role within safe sport, it should be as easy as calling somebody for references asking, “Hey, do you know Joe? Do you have anything about Joe?” If the response is, “Yes, he's great on the ice, but he has this one little mark against him”, that should be a red flag for anybody.
There needs to be this sort of open communication between sports organizations and personnel. It's a reflection of what you deem as acceptable as an organization should you choose to bring people on, knowing that they have a mark on their file.
I will conclude this part by stressing the importance of an independent public inquiry. In particular, I want to emphasize that victims should be given the option of testifying or not, anonymously or publicly. Essentially, it should be their choice.
Ms. Worley, thank you for being with us.
I'd like to talk about the problem of foreign interference in the Canadian sport system. This is a major concern, as you've clearly illustrated.
We see that the Olympic movement, which includes the International Olympic Committee and the Canadian Olympic Committee, plays a role in promoting the autonomy of sport. However, there are schemes that often protect human rights violations. Organizations often fail to assume their responsibilities.
In Canada, you're a survivor, and you've been smart enough to act and stay strong. So you're a great ally for us and a great help. I can see how immense your accomplishments are. You can be proud to stand up and speak out against unsafe practices for all athletes. To me, given everything you've been through, you're a hero and, obviously, a role model.
If we were to remember just one of your accomplishments, it would be the fact that an athlete cannot escape the obligation to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and, therefore, be able to fight her legal battle before a court in her own country. Human rights tribunals are the only tribunals competent to examine situations of abuse and mistreatment.
You are here to clarify certain concepts, namely, liability and brand protection. Could you clarify those concepts for us in the context of autonomy in sport and foreign interference?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to appear today before this Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and its study of safe sport in Canada.
As an introduction, my name is Suzanne Paulins. I'm the acting chief executive officer for Swimming Canada. I joined Swimming Canada six years ago as the senior manager, domestic operations, and then moved to the director of sport development role in October 2020. In March 2021, I took on additional responsibilities as director of operations and sport development, which I held until last week, when I stepped into the acting CEO role due to the personal medical leave of CEO Ahmed El-Awadi.
Prior to joining Swimming Canada in a staff position, I'd been involved in the sport of swimming since 1974. I swam competitively with my hometown club for approximately eight years. When my time as an athlete ended, my involvement in the sport of swimming did not. In 1987, I was a summer student intern with the provincial section, and then in 2000, when my then seven-year-old began competitive swimming with our local club, followed by her two brothers, I became involved in the sport again.
As my three swimmers developed within the sport, so did I. I was on our club board for 18 years, serving eight years as president. I was on the provincial section board for eight years and also became heavily involved in officiating swimming competitions, first locally, then moving to provincial and national competitions and, finally, receiving an appointment to the international FINA federation list as a referee in 2017.
The sport of swimming is a passion and has been for my entire life. My children are my “why”. My purpose from the beginning has been to ensure that we create and maintain an environment where everyone can enjoy the sport that means so much to me. My children, now adults, are all still involved in the sport, with one still competing and the other two working as coaches within a varsity environment.
I have seen and experienced the evolution of safe sport from the club level through to the provincial level and now at the national level. Many of the stories we've heard from athletes across the country from a variety of sports have been heartbreaking. We all have an obligation to do better: to work to create safe and inclusive environments where every participant at every level feels that they can participate in sports safely.
Swimming Canada has worked and will continue to work on creating and maintaining a safe and inclusive environment. Swimming Canada introduced safe sport initiatives in 2016, with the hiring of a safe sport coordinator and the introduction of our safe sport framework, which included the pillars of education, prevention and response, and the development of policies and procedures to support the framework. An independent third party was also introduced to manage safe sport complaints. Last month, Swimming Canada hired a director of people and culture, strengthening our commitment to people and culture in our sport.
Over the past six to seven years since the introduction of the framework, we have continued to try to build awareness in working with the provincial sections. Each provincial section is also building their safe sport framework.
We continue to learn and we continue to grow. We currently have a campaign via Twitter called “Safe Sport Monday”, where over the course of eight weeks we are raising awareness and educating our community on what safe sport is and sharing different aspects of safe sport, including open and observable environments, “See Something? Say Something”, and mental health.
Swimming Canada understands the need to hear the athlete's voice. Several members of the board were athletes, one as recently as six to seven years ago on the national team. We are also current rewriting our bylaws to formally include a retired athlete on the board, beginning in September. We have an active athletes council, one that includes current and former Olympic and Paralympic team athletes. Over the past several years, we have several examples of athlete well-being prioritized ahead of results.
Sport is an important fabric in the life of Canadians. Parents, athletes, coaches, officials, administrators, provincial sport bodies, national sport bodies and all partners have a part to play in making sport a safe place. Much has been done, and there is still much work ahead. Education and awareness across all levels are crucially important, as is a coordinated approach across all levels and through a central point of leadership.
To go back to my why, at its simplest, it is and was my kids, but it is more than that: It is the people, every person in our sport—all sports—and creating the environment where each and every one can enjoy a safe and inclusive experience.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Ms. Paulins.
We'll go around. The first round is six minutes.
I'm going to take the six minutes, if you don't mind, for the Conservative Party. I was just notified early this morning that I would be in this chair, but I have many questions for you.
Listening to your brief for five minutes, many families are like you and are waking up 3:30 or four in the morning to go to the pool. Mine was like that for several years.
With a year and a half out from the Paralympics and the Olympics in Paris, Ahmed El-Awadi had left the organization. Canada is, as you know, a powerhouse in swimming, so this is a red flag whether you like it or not. I know you've moved into that position after 45 years around the pool and the board table.
Can you reassure Canadians that Swimming Canada is ready for the Olympics? Certainly the qualifying times to qualify for Paris are coming up very shortly. Can you give us something in-depth on why Ahmed El-Awadi did leave at a time when usually you're preparing for your Olympic team?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the question.
I didn't have that experience as a swimmer, thankfully. I can say that it wasn't my experience when I came up, so it's not something I'm familiar with. I'm thankful for that.
Now, coaches' education and ongoing professional development are crucially important. For our teams, from our high-performance centres to when we take a national team away, there are sets of protocols when it comes to that type of process with regard to calipers and weighing swimmers. That's voluntary. Someone can opt in. They don't need to be part of it if they choose not to be.
It can be used in a scientific way. When it's used in that way, there can be benefit to it. Again, it needs to be optional.
We also work really closely with a great group of integrated sports specialists through the CSI network, both in Ontario as well as Vancouver, as well as through the INS in Quebec. We're working with support specialists where this is their specialty. They're able to provide our coaches with very accurate, up-to-date information. Then we're able to share that beyond that network, down further to our coaches through different collaborations. We also work with the Canadian Swimming Coaches Association in developing, supporting and partnering with them on different educational professional development.
I'm inspired by your testimony, Ms. Paulins, so let me mention some other good things that are happening in sport.
Through sport, our children can have fantastic experiences. I'd like to take a few seconds to congratulate my son Léon, who had a competition in Mont Tremblant on the weekend and set a national standard and a club record. Sports federations and sports clubs really contribute to the development of the athletes and human beings they are. I'd like to thank my son's coaches, especially Marco and Kim, from the Rouyn‑Noranda Dauphins swim club, CADAC. We're very proud of this success.
I think that, as part of a study on sport, we also need to talk about the good things that come out of it.
Ms. Paulins, I'd like to come back to the experience of the witnesses we heard from this morning, particularly on the issue of autonomy.
In your case, at Swimming Canada, the notion of autonomy refers to the ability of the national sport organization, as well as the body that represents it internationally, to make decisions independently of any political, economic or external influence. This ensures that athletes can compete on a level playing field without undue influence from foreign interests or external pressure, which is obviously desirable in the very spirit of sport.
Are you able to hold a swimming event that takes into account all of these aspects of human rights recognized by Canadian courts?
In that sense, on what scientific evidence is needed to base the most recent eligibility policy for swimming athletes, which will establish the definition of gender set by the Fédération internationale de natation? For example, how is the issue of transgender people integrated into sports such as swimming?
:
I believe the question was with regard to how Swimming Canada is approaching inclusivity and transgender swimmers at this time. As a member of World Aquatics, Swimming Canada is bound by the World Aquatics policies and procedures, as they relate to international competition. When we send a team to the Olympics, or the world championships, we will follow the rules of the policies that have been set for us by World Aquatics.
Domestically, Swimming Canada has had in our rule books, and as part of our policies and procedures for several years, the ability for athletes, swimmers, coaches and officials, to register in the gender with which they identify. Swimmers may register as they choose. In this past year, we added an additional option of gender identification.
In our sport, swimmers must choose either male or female in order to compete, but we've added an additional layer of optional information where we're capturing if they are cisgender, transgender, or non-binary. We've added that as an element to add a level of inclusivity. Our swimmers must compete as male or female. That is the way our sport is currently set up, but we added that additional element to allow for gender identification.
For our domestic swim meet competitions, swimmers may swim in the category with which they identify. That is how we've approached it at this time.
:
Is that topic wrapped up?
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Kevin Waugh): That topic is gone.
Mrs. Rachael Thomas: I do have a motion that I attempted to move the other day, but I was filibustered by the party opposite. I'll bring that back to the table now.
That motion had to do with the changes that have been made to the Canadian passport. As is known, Canadians weren't consulted on that decision, and my hope would be that the committee could look at this more closely.
My motion reads as follows:
That the committee immediately undertake a study regarding the recently announced changes to the Canadian passport; in particular the decision by the government to remove images that reflected Canadian culture and history; that the Minister of Heritage be invited to appear as part of this study; that this study consist of three meetings; that witness lists be due within five days of the adoption of this motion; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.
I think it should be noted again that the changes made to the passport were done without any public consultation whatsoever. Things like Quebec City were removed from the passport, and also Terry Fox, who was diagnosed with cancer and then, determined to take on the battle, ran more than halfway across our country—with one leg, I should add—in wanting to draw attention to cancer and cancer research. Of course, his legacy lives on.
Vimy Ridge has been removed from our passport, which, of course, is of our dear veterans, who fought a fierce battle. They made history, which is something that our country traditionally has been very proud of. We wear a poppy every November, and the reason we do so is in honour of those who have fought, those who have fallen and the loved ones, of course, who have been left behind. Why we would remove this image from our passport is beyond me. I know that many veterans are hurt by this decision and have some significant questions that they would like to ask with regard to it.
Another notable change to the passport would be that the first member of Parliament who was female, Nellie McClung, was also removed. Again, for a feminist government to make that decision seems quite rich. Also, I think there's something there to be said with regard to our history and the celebration of such an achievement and such an incredible woman. Again, this was done without consultation and, really, without any due reason.
Ultimately, it comes down to our history and whether or not it is going to be preserved; I believe a choice was made by this government to begin erasing it. That's a sad day, and many Canadians are quite discouraged by this decision, if not outright angry and altogether frustrated.
Because folks might be curious, I should add what those historic pieces were replaced with. They were replaced with a man raking leaves. They were replaced with a boy jumping into a lake. They were replaced with a squirrel eating a nut. These are the types of images that have replaced the historic moments of history in our country, the cities of tremendous value and the people of remarkable character who have fought good fights.
With that, given that there has been such substantial change made to such an integral document within our country and that is held dearly by the citizens of this nation, I would ask that we study it at committee.
The historical aspect is worth discussing. The passport is a document that the vast majority of Canadians carry. It is something that is important to Canadians, as it's a form of citizenship. Many in this room have been at citizenship ceremonies where people have to put up their hand to swear allegiance to being a Canadian citizen. That's been lessened significantly, which I have a problem with. A legal document of citizenship is a critical document about our country, about our history.
If anybody ever asks me a question, I'm going to be dragging up history in whatever I talk about.
It does represent, as a legal document, a significant part about what we are in this country, so to have a discussion about why it was changed and the rationale....
I have a number of maple leaf ties. I love maple leaves and their beautiful colours. They're fantastic. I have no objection to maple leaves at all, but the historical aspect of this particular document, as I said, carries a sign of our citizenship that we travel with, and it is really important and something worth considering, so the rationale for changing it and the rationale for knowing why it's being recognized in the work that's in it now, other than the legal aspect of it that you must have in a critical security document.... I totally understand that. It's critical security. The Canadian passport is one of the most valued in the world, one of the ones that are blackmailed and copied, because it is such a recognized document out there as part of an important nationality.
I believe we should take a look at this and understand why these changes are being made and why what was there is important to our heritage.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.