Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. With regard to provincial sanctions, then, would a registry be required there as well?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Right now we're trying to figure out the best way. We don't want to duplicate efforts and have 14 different registries. The preference would be to have one, but PTs have to get on board. We're having an FPT meeting in, I think, February to discuss this, but yes, it's a massive problem within sport how bifurcated this jurisdiction is.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

If provincial sport organizations were told that they could not send athletes to national sport organizations unless they had a sanctions list, a registry, would that not do the trick?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I think the question is whether we obligate members of NSOs to be part of a system that has a registry. That's what I'm looking at doing because that's how you get at them. They're members of the organization we fund.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I'm going to the Liberals, with Lisa Hepfner, for six minutes, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister and officials, for being here with us today.

I think March 2024 is great news for this registry.

Minister, is there anything more you can tell us about how this registry will work? How do the names get added? Is a criminal conviction required for somebody who has been accused of something to be added to that list? Is it going to be accessible across the country? Maybe you could go into more detail about how you envision it.

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

It's based on signatories to the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, which I will now call UCCMS so I don't waste all of my time.

If an individual has been sanctioned under that code of conduct, they will appear on the registry. As of this April, every organization funded by Sport Canada is now required to sign on and has signed on to the code. We now capture all of those organizations under the code.

What isn't yet part of it is anybody who has been accused or is perhaps in the process of an investigation. The nut I'm currently trying to crack is how we can remove people from the sport context during that investigatory period. We're trying to figure that part out, but there's definitely the sanctioning part.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I want to go back to your announcement yesterday. You've announced a commission model to look into safe sport rather than a public inquiry. Would you explain to this committee why you made that decision? What factors went into it?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I can assure you all that the decision wasn't made lightly. It was made after a massive individual consultation on my part with sport organizations, survivors, athlete groups, athletes, people from within sport, experts from outside of sport, the Canadian Women's Foundation and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. I was asking for desired outcomes and really getting a handle on principles that they wanted to see reflected in the terms of reference for whatever mechanism we put in place. What became very clear was that it had to be trauma-informed, victim-centred, human rights-respecting and forward-looking.

After taking in all of that input, we researched the different models out there and fell on three that I particularly leaned into, which were the Dubin inquiry, Roy Romanow's inquiry into the future of health and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Looking at a public inquiry model is, I believe, counter to the trauma-informed, victim-focused, victim-centred aspects of the principles we were trying to move forward with.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Can you just explain that a bit more? Why would an inquiry not be victim-informed?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I know you have all dug in on this and I absolutely respect the work you have done.

Compelling evidence, compelling witnesses and being able to cross-examine victims are things that concern me, especially because this commission is not out to prove that bad things happened in sport. We are starting from the position that bad things happened and that we believe survivors, we believe victims and we want to make the system better. We didn't want to put athletes, and victims in particular, in the compromised position of being compelled to testify.

Then, of course, there's the very practical reality that when you have a public inquiry in an area that is mostly in provincial jurisdiction, you have to negotiate the terms of reference with the provinces and territories, which could add another year to the process. I can't guarantee that every province and territory would agree, and where would that leave us?

I landed on the truth and reconciliation model because it served a vulnerable population that was previously traumatized in a system that did not protect them. It was forward-looking. It was expressly not a public inquiry and it did not compel evidence and witnesses, so it felt to me, and to us as a government, that this was the best way forward to achieve the outcome we want, which is better, safer sport.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

There are victims who feel that public inquiry recommendations have more weight at the end and are more easily implemented than those coming from a commission. What's your response to that?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

I'm not sure that's the case, although once again I wouldn't want to disagree, because I have the utmost respect for everybody who has shared their stories so we could get to today.

I think with the nature of the recommendation of this impartial, independent commission led by a respected legal expert, it will have the weight and gravitas it needs to get the desired result.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

How do we know that survivors and victims have been heard in this process?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

It's a good question. I can tell you that many athlete groups have come out in support of this commission. I hope those who still remain concerned or still lack trust—and by the way, we have to re-earn their trust—will at least see that their input, the outcomes they wanted, the principles they wanted us to uphold and the composition of the commission being led by an independent individual from outside of sport—the things they said mattered no matter what process we put in place—are in this process.

I'm hoping that if they see what they said they wanted in this, even though it's not the model they thought they needed to achieve these things, they will start to believe again in the system.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Over the last couple of years, this committee has been studying safe sport. Is that useful to you? Would it be helpful if we could produce a report to help in the work?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Absolutely. In fact, I can confidently say we can start from a place of knowing that bad things happen in sport because of the work that your committee and the other committee did. Over two years, there have been hundreds of witnesses and thousands of pages of testimony and submissions.

We're not where we were in Dubin. In Dubin, we hadn't had two parliamentary committees when we started. Part of the Dubin inquiry was to uncover the extent of the problem.

As I said, we're here because of all of this, but of course your recommendations will matter to me, to the government and also to the commission.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I will now go to the Bloc Québécois.

Sébastien Lemire, you have six minutes, please.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Qualtrough, from what you proposed yesterday, there doesn't seem to be much of a desire to reconcile with the survivors, given what each of them have gone through. We were hoping that you'd spend more time focusing on what's been done to set up the public inquiry. Clearly, given the statements that were made yesterday by supporters of the IOC and AthletesCAN, this seems to me like proof that your handling of the crisis was tailored to them rather than the people of Quebec and Canada and the victims who were calling for a public inquiry.

When the only people who were singled out for months are the same people who were congratulating you yesterday and today, you'll forgive my skepticism about the solutions you're bringing forward.

My first question is this. How do you intend to put a stop to self-regulation by sports organizations and oversee the legislation and the measures that you'll be implementing to that end?

As the past few months have shown, this machine has been in defence mode, but this is the culture of silence that led to the toxic abuses that the victims endured in the first place.

By following the truth and reconciliation model, you're removing any enforcement powers against the abusers — the bad guys, if I may use that expression. They can't be compelled to testify. If this situation has been brought to light over the past two years, it's because the Standing Committee on the Status of Women as well as our own committee were able to compel the production of documents and compel people to testify about what they did and didn't do. I'm thinking in particular of Sport Canada, who ignored the problem for years and didn't do anything when people came forward.

An independent public inquiry would've allowed us to get to the bottom of things — what Sport Canada did and didn't do, in particular. The path you've chosen won't allow for the kind of clean-up we were hoping for.

Why such a lenient approach?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

That's a long question.

I don't entirely agree with the tenor of your question. Honestly, I'm perfectly comfortable with the process we're undertaking, because it's really based on minimizing trauma. This model wasn't just supported by the sports community yesterday; it was also supported by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and the Canadian Women's Foundation, two organizations who work in the field. They're the experts and they don't want the victims to be retraumatized.

In my view, compelling testimony from a victim who's already been traumatized is unthinkable. I've issued directives, and I can assure the member that Sport Canada will have to fully take part in the process. I'm ready to use the tools at my disposal to ensure that the sports community works with the commission, which will be headed by an independent person from outside the sports community.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I'd like to come back to what we heard yesterday at the press conference. The victims spoke up and they can speak up again because they still have things to say. It's the people on the other side whose testimony I would've liked to hear. They created the systems and are protecting them. The fact that the abusers were able to hide behind third-party investigations and use other mechanisms funded by national sports organizations tells me that the machine is in defence mode. The solutions put forward, in particular by Sport Canada, have created more problems than there were before.

How do you intend to protect the victims who'd like to testify before the commission? The victims were protected in parliamentary committee, but they won't be in the context of a voluntary commission. That's one of the approach's greatest weakness, as far as I'm concerned.

Will the victims be protected and will they be able to speak freely? I doubt it. The spotlight will be entirely on the victims, which will traumatize them anew, instead of being on the abusers and the broken systems.

Will the victims be protected from potential lawsuits brought on by their sports organization or their abuser? What of the non-disclosure agreements that they've signed over the years?

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

There are four or five questions in there.

Just for clarity, non-disclosure agreements are no longer allowed. Every NSO has agreed, as a condition of their funding, that we do not permit NDAs anymore in sport, so those are off the table.

If an athlete, a victim, wants to participate in this process, they can do so in camera privately with the commission. That's permitted in the terms of reference. Their personal information can be anonymized at their request, and they will be told that they have the right to have their personal information anonymized. Every victim will also be supported in every engagement by mental health and other experts at their disposal, because we know that this has the potential to be very difficult.

I'm definitely putting the emphasis on protecting victims and survivors, but I'm in no way letting sport off the hook on this. There will be systemic change that comes from this.