Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Ashton, I think you've made a good point for why this should be allowed, so I will allow this motion.

The motion is on the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would have expected Ms. Ashton—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me. I will ask Madame Bouchard to please bear with us.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would have thought that Ms. Ashton could at least wait until the second round of questions to allow Mrs. Bouchard to continue testifying. That way, we could ultimately release her if necessary so that we could hold our discussions.

That said, we agree on the importance of the subject, so much so that we are interested in knowing the content of the report published last week.

Sonia Regenbogen led an investigation on the subject, which we should take a look at.

I propose an amendment to Ms. Ashton's motion.

I move that we consult the report and invite Ms. Regenbogen, a lawyer who conducted an investigation on this very topic, to appear before the committee. We could then put our questions to her. We could also hold the meeting in camera to allow Ms. Regenbogen to speak about things she may not have been able to make public in her report or may not say if the meeting were public.

Based on that meeting and the information we are able to gather, we could determine whether we are missing information and whether it is appropriate to continue our fact-finding efforts.

Following the study on safe sport, the Bloc Québécois called for an independent public inquiry. That call is still relevant; it is even more so now, given the information that is currently being published.

If we want to do things in the right order and the right way, the first step is to try to find out more.

Let's consult the lawyer who led the investigation and then decide whether it's appropriate to conduct a study like the one Ms. Ashton is asking for.

We would like to make an amendment to this motion, an amendment that we will send by email to the clerk.

Here is the motion as we would like it to be amended:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee dedicate a two-hour in camera meeting to study the role of officials associated with the Canadian Women’s Soccer Team and Canada Soccer in creating an unacceptable culture including disturbing workplace allegations and the use of drones for espionage, which has damaged Canada’s reputation in the lead-up to Canada hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup, that in order to do so, the committee first focus on the report “Canada Soccer Association Investigation Report Regarding Women’s National Team 2024 Paris Olympics”, which was released November 5, 2024, and invite, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), Sonia Regenbogen of Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark LLP, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House;

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will suspend until people get a chance to read the amendment and discuss it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Before we go to Ms. Ashton, remember that we are studying the amendment by Mr. Champoux. It's not the motion by Ms. Ashton but the amendment to her motion.

If you note, the amendment changes the words "undertake a study of no less than 10 hours" to the words "dedicate a two-hour in-camera meeting". Removed from this was a list of the witnesses that Ms. Ashton put forward. In fact, only one witness was put in place—Sonia Regenbogen from the firm Mathews, Dinsdale & Clark LLP—and it added that the committee report its findings and recommendations.

That's a pretty simple amendment, so I will entertain discussion on the amendment.

Go ahead, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I see some raised hands, Madam Chair.

I want to say that it's important to get to the bottom of this. I think that everyone is in favour of integrity, it's absolutely true. We want athletes, young athletes and professional athletes at all levels, to be able to operate in a safe environment and in a context where the values of Quebeckers and Canadians are upheld, that is to say the values of honesty and integrity in sport. We completely agree with that.

However, there are already studies under way here. That's why I'm proposing a two-hour meeting with Ms. Regenbogen to ask her questions about the in-depth investigation she conducted and the report she published last week. I would like us to hold this meeting as soon as possible, i.e., immediately after we wrap up the studies currently under way. I think it is entirely feasible and realistic, based on our current schedule, to make progress in our studies and to plan to start around December 11.

That's all I wanted to add. We think this is a very important subject and we can see its relevance, but I think the right thing to do is to start by meeting with the author of the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Martin.

Now I will go to Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll keep this very brief.

I certainly support getting some answers on behalf of young athletes and whatnot. It's unfortunate that it was moved at the beginning of this meeting, but I hope it can be dealt with expeditiously so that we can get back to our witness, who is patiently waiting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Gainey is next.

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Champoux.

I would start by highlighting that, as he said, the committee has a number of things on the docket. While this is important, we would have to prioritize what we've already undertaken before we embark on what's being proposed in that amendment.

I would also highlight that the minister did cut funding immediately for the coaches during this investigation, and the organization is committed to the changes that are outlined in the report. Nonetheless, I do think it's worth having the author here and having an opportunity to speak to them about what is in the report, so we will support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Let me be brief and and very clear: I find it outrageous that the Bloc is gutting our motion on something as critical as a range of scandals that have now come out of Canada Soccer. This is about the abuse of public funding. This is about Canada's reputation, which maybe, for the Bloc, doesn't really matter, but the reality is that we, as MPs, have a real—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

I don't want to infringe on my colleague's freedom of expression, but I just said very clearly that we take this subject very seriously. We think it's important to study it and, at the very least, give it the attention it deserves. My colleague is spewing nonsense and uttering completely unfounded insults towards me and the Bloc Québécois. She knows that very well. She discusses this issue regularly with my colleague Mr. Lemire. She knows full well that this is an issue that is also close to his heart. We're trying to make room in the committee's schedule, and her reaction is to hurl insults. I just wanted to put that on the table. I never said that the issue was not important and that it should be treated lightly. On the contrary. I would ask her to be a bit more serious, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

Ms. Ashton, have you finished?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

No, I have definitely not.

I take issue when a male colleague refers to me having to be serious. There is no place for that kind of—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

One moment, Madam Chair, one moment, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Order, please.

Ms. Ashton has the floor.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

If I can continue, what I will say is that—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me, Ms. Ashton; we have a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I ask that you demand that Ms. Ashton withdraw the comments she just made. She insinuated that as a male colleague, I was being sexist, but that has nothing to do with what I said. It's a total insult to my integrity, my intelligence and my values.

I would ask you to ask her to withdraw her comments about me. This is unacceptable. It's disgusting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Ashton, you heard Mr. Champoux. He's making a point that what he said did not refer to your gender at all, and he would ask you to withdraw that statement.

Please, let us be collegial at this meeting. Let's not carry on with fighting. Come on.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

What I will say, Madam Chair, is that I don't want to impugn my colleague's motives, but I do have concerns with the phrasing that was used. I expressed that as somebody who's been doing this work for 16 years, but let me get to the point here.

What I know is important for Canadians is to get—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Ashton, I think Mr. Champoux asked for you to withdraw your statement about his being a sexist. Will you please deal with that issue first?