Canadian Heritage Committee on June 6th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Bittle has a point of order.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

We're well into another Conservative filibuster. I think there are a number of people on the speaking list. Perhaps we should let the witnesses go.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

That would be up to the will of the committee.

What's the opinion of the committee? Do we dismiss the witnesses or keep them?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Do we dismiss them?

[An hon. member]

It's not fair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Julian, are you on the same point of order?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Yes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

There were questions about the billion dollars that Mr. Waugh asked about and—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That's not a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

If you could provide those amounts back to the committee, I think it would be very helpful.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Thank you, Mr. Ripley, Mr. Sabbagh and Ms. Awad. You are dismissed, for lack of a better word. Thank you for your time.

We will now return to Mrs. Thomas.

Mrs. Thomas, you have the floor.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

For context, I want us to understand what we're talking about here, because I believe there may be members here at the committee, and certainly those who are observing, who may not be familiar with what I am talking about. It actually might be worth taking a step back, and providing a bit of context for the unanimous consent motion that was passed in the House of Commons, and why I believe it is so important to make sure we get to that sooner rather than later.

In other words, push the pause button on Bill C-11, take care of this, and then we can resume clause-by-clause, rather than Mr. Julian's motion, which is to say that we'll eventually get to this unanimous consent motion.

For the sake of context, there is an article that was written on June 3, 2022 for Complex Canada. It says:

A 24-year-old woman who says she was sexually assaulted by eight Canadian Hockey League players, including some who played on the championship 2017-18 World Junior team and who went on to secure NHL contracts, has dropped a lawsuit against the individuals, Hockey Canada, and the CHL after reaching a settlement.

The incident has only recently come to light after TSN reported on documents filed in Ontario Superior Court in London, Ontario this spring that detail accusations laid by a female plaintiff referred to only as 'E.M.' who alleges she was repeatedly sexually assaulted in a hotel room while intoxicated after a Hockey Canada Foundation gala and golf event that took place in the Ontario city in June 2018.

It goes on to explain:

The woman’s London-based lawyer told TSN that a settlement was reached and that none of the eight accused individuals—who are not named in the filings and referred to as John Doe 1-8—were ultimately charged. Allegations were also leveled against Hockey Canada for apparently being aware of the alleged incident and choosing not to investigate or punish players.

It is unclear if a non-disclosure agreement was part of the deal, but a statement from Hockey Canada spokeswoman Esther Madziya to TSN states that the faction contacted police immediately upon learning about the alleged incident in 2018.

Details of the night in question are disturbing and difficult to read, outlining how the plaintiff was allegedly given drinks by the accused and separated from her friends at a London bar and restaurant before returning to a hotel room...

The article goes on to explain what happened in that hotel room, and states:

'At times the plaintiff was crying and attempted to leave the room but was directed, manipulated and intimidated into remaining, after which she was subjected to further sexual assaults,' the lawsuit reads. 'Hockey Canada is deeply troubled by the very serious allegations of sexual assault regarding members of the 2017-18 National Junior Hockey Team,' the statement reads. 'As soon as Hockey Canada became aware of this matter in 2018, we contacted local police authorities to inform them. The same day, we also retained Henein Hutchison LLP, a firm with extensive experience in this area, to undertake a thorough independent internal investigation and make recommendations on areas for improvement which we have been implementing and will continue to pursue.'

'The person bringing the allegations forward chose not to speak with either police or with Hockey Canada’s independent investigator and also chose not to identify the players involved. This was her right, and we fully respect her wishes. We have settled this matter and as part of that settlement, we will not be commenting further.'

The article goes on to say:

But questions remain regarding how the alleged gang rape was dealt with by the national governing body Hockey Canada, both from a public funding perspective and as multiple of the alleged assailants have gone on to play for NHL teams. “I am shocked and angry to read about the allegations made against the players of the Canadian Junior Hockey Team,” Canada's Minister of Sport Pascale St-Onge told the press in Ottawa. “All Canadians want to know and me too, is whether any public funds were used to cover up this story of gang rape,” she said, adding that an audit of federal funding is on the way. The NHL responded by promising an investigation of its own: “We will endeavour to determine the underlying facts and, to the extent this may involve players who are now in the NHL, we will determine what action, if any, would be appropriate.

Mr. Chair, although I left out some of the details because I didn't feel that they would be necessarily appropriate to read into the mike today, I do believe that this article outlines the important nature of the study that I am requesting to move forward with. As stated previously, I do believe that time is of the essence. I believe it would be inappropriate for this subamendment to be passed because it would be to take this victim lightly. It would be saying that this can be pushed into the future to some unknown date and instead we would rush through clause-by-clause on C-11.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Next on the list for the subamendment is Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the sense or the desire of the subamendment to try to balance the need to achieve both focuses, but I believe the committee mandates, or the references from the minister of both the legislation and of this particular sorry and sad situation, don't have a date for reporting back. Unless I'm mistaken, it is the choice of the committee as to which is a priority and what the intent back was. I understand that, even in the original motion on the number of witnesses, there was no reporting back date, although the chair in the last meeting hinted at some sort of desire to do that.

This is a serious issue that is urgent, because we're seeing and have seen cover-ups in junior hockey and sexual abuse. We all know about the Sheldon Kennedy case and those issues that we thought had led to change, but have apparently not changed the attitude of a lot of—or some elements or number of—junior players.

I played hockey at competitive levels all my life and understand the locker room sort of mentality that seems to develop, but it doesn't excuse anything that has gone on. Eight players, shockingly some of whom are in the NHL now, were involved in this alleged incident. There must obviously be a little more to it, or $3.55 million of Hockey Canada dollars wouldn't have been used to try to keep this from going public, I assume, especially when NDAs are signed. The primary purpose we see of NDAs is apparently to keep these types of things from going public.

There's a lot of work that needs to be done that the minister has asked for on this important issue. I don't think the committee should be restricting its time frame, or the likelihood is.... Maybe it's not the parliamentary secretary's power to adjourn this committee early, but it certainly is when the House adjourns, and there's a lot of time that will be required, obviously, for clause-by-clause of C-11, which I don't believe really has a time limit on when it has to be done. It is not a time-sensitive bill. The committee can take as much time as it needs to continue the committee's study and the amendments, while this issue obviously is one that is very current and should be considered sensitively and with some transparency.

When these kinds of things happen, we've seen NDAs used in some very famous cases in the United States to try to keep criminal behaviour quiet, whether it was Bill Cosby or perhaps even some of the NDAs that former president Trump has used to keep his antics quiet.

While we don't know whether the audit has started, there is accountability for a governance organization that oversees all of our peak levels of amateur hockey to come before Parliament.... After all, it does receive public funds in some way and thus should be held accountable as to why, when we thought that some of these issues had been dealt with from a governance and an overall education and management perspective as a result of the Sheldon Kennedy case, this kind of incident apparently still happens.

I would ask the committee to consider that there is some urgency to this. Reject the subamendment to the motion so that we can consider this fairly urgent request and unanimous consent motion from the House to look into this quickly. We can't let the exposure or the chance that this will happen again.... It shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Certainly, there's some urgency to this. If the committee were not able to complete this study or to even look at this issue before the summer because the House chooses to rise, or to rise early, I think that would leave a lot of young Canadians very exposed to future situations that may or may not occur. It's too far to go—till perhaps next October—if the House were to rise before the minister's request on this gets dealt with.

It's a challenging situation, and I would urge the committee to reject this amendment and to get back to Ms. Thomas's amendment so that the minister's request to study this difficult situation gets treated with some urgency and sensitivity.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

I have Mr. Uppal next on the speaking list.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can appreciate Mr. Julian's suggestion that this committee address Bill C-11 first and then move on to this issue with Hockey Canada. I can maybe appreciate it in the sense of its just trying to get one thing done and then going on to the next, but I do believe that in this case there is definitely a responsibility that we have as members of Parliament to first address these very serious allegations with Hockey Canada.

It is not only because it's possibly Government of Canada funding that may have been used as part of what looks like a cover-up of sexual assault on an individual by hockey players, but also because I would never want Canadians to think that somehow we put off possibly looking into a situation where maybe professional athletes are given the benefit of the doubt or being passed by for scrutiny because we figured we had more important things to do. This is of utmost importance.

I know that Mrs. Thomas went through some of the details, and after hearing those details, I would suggest that in no way would I feel comfortable in saying that we do not look into this immediately. I think that would be most important.

I do believe that there was no timeline set for Bill C-11 to go back to the House. We do have time, so I believe that as a matter of urgency for our committee, and also just respecting the will of the House of Commons, which unanimously.... This is something that does not happen often, where we have a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to address a situation. I believe that our colleagues, members of Parliament from all sides of the House, are looking to us to address this. I don't think it would be responsible for us to go back to them and say, “Yes, but we had other things we were planning on doing.” This is something that has been handed to us as a committee, and we definitely do have a responsibility to address it, I would say, immediately.

I know there is going to be a little bit of time that will be needed to decide which witnesses we want to bring forward, and there are going to be legal issues here. There are sensitivities in a number of different ways that we would have to address, with some things possibly being in camera, so there are a number of things we have to consider.

I think it would be absolutely important that we move on to this new study, study the issue, do it properly and do what I would say is our job, to address these types of issues and to give Canadians confidence that we have taken this very seriously.

Once that is completed, we'll get back to Bill C-11. Bill C-11 is not going anywhere. This is something that...are changes to the Internet. There are different views on it, and we would continue to study that and continue to hear from witnesses, which is also, of course, part of our job.

I think it is of utmost importance that we do address this, especially considering that we don't have an actual timeline for either. I will say that even the House of Commons' unanimous motion that was provided to this committee did not have a timeline, but, considering the nature of those issues, I think it would be most important.

Even if you asked the Minister of Sport, I believe she also would agree that it is absolutely important that we look into the situation. It is very serious, and I would not want to face my constituents, letting them know that we put it off to address something else, and then all of a sudden the House adjourns or something for the summer, and we end up not looking into it. I think it is very important that we do look into this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Uppal.

I have Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm glad to see that I still have a bit of time left.

I think it's really something that we are debating this motion, which received unanimous support in the House a few days ago, especially since it was a Bloc Québécois motion. When we were preparing this absolutely crucial motion, we understood the paramount importance of this issue. We had a debate amongst ourselves around the level of urgency we should give the study we were proposing.

I bring it up because this was a motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois, so I probably understand the intent behind it more than anyone. We did indeed discuss when would be the right time for the committee to hear from the people at Hockey Canada and the Minister of Sport. It was clear to us that the committee's consideration of Bill C‑11 took priority and should have our full attention as a matter of urgency. We agreed that, once that was dealt with, it would be appropriate to invite the Hockey Canada officials and the Minister of Sport.

I am trying to provide the context for the motion. Although we consider the motion to be crucially important and understand that it concerns a very sensitive topic to be handled with the utmost respect, never did we intend for the committee to deal with the subject matter of the motion before completing the examination of Bill C‑11. For that reason, I wholeheartedly support Mr. Julian's subamendment, which would ensure that, if we move swiftly to complete our work, we could hear from Hockey Canada officials and the Minister of Sport as early as next week. We could get on with the discussion of this extremely sensitive issue.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I lived through the Graham James incident. I knew Theoren Fleury, Sheldon Kennedy and Todd Holt. I heard the whispers for two years and did nothing. I covered the Western Hockey League for 40 years. When Swift Current came to Saskatoon, you'd often hear, “Graham James; Graham James”.

I'm living this again, guys. It wrecked Theoren Fleury's life. It wrecked Sheldon Kennedy's life. It wrecked the whole organization of the Swift Current Broncos, and here we are again, saying that this can wait. It's ridiculous. This needs to be brought forward now.

Mr. Westhead from TSN came through with a very.... You know, we talk about reporting and investigation. He found this. Then it was buried in every Canadian newspaper in this country. It should have bloody well been on the front page. It was buried in the Toronto Sun, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail.

Damn it, I've looked at the 2017-18 roster, and there were eight players involved. Which ones? I've looked at every name on that roster from 2017-18. I'm disgusted with Hockey Canada. God, did they not learn anything from the Graham James incident?

Have you ever googled the Hockey Canada 2017-18 gold medal team roster? Have you looked? Who's involved? Maybe...? No...? I don't know where he is today. Where is he today? Who has covered that up? Google that roster from the 2017-18 gold medal team and tell me: There are eight on there; which eight?

When I heard this in the House of Commons, I....

Mr. Champoux, to be honest with you, I'm upset at myself for not bringing this out. I lived through the Graham James incident. I've done banquets with Kennedy, Fleury, Holt, Joe Sakic—the whole Swift Current team. I'm disturbed at myself for not bringing this unanimous consent to the House of Commons.

Hockey Canada, through Own the Podium high performance, gets $7.8 million from the federal government. That's $7.8 million through Own the Podium high performance. They swept this under the rug for three and a half years.

I'm sorry, guys, but this has to come now. I agree with sports minister St-Onge. When this was brought out that day in the House of Commons, her comments were appropriate. I don't ever want to see a Graham James again in my lifetime. I think I'm seeing it in front of me with the 2017-18 gold medal Team Canada.

We need to bring this right now. We have one team left in the NHL that's Canadian-based, and that's the Edmonton Oilers. We'll see tonight if they continue.

For Hockey Canada and all other fitness groups, research and media reports have revealed the harassment, the abuse and the discrimination in sport. We talk about getting involved in sport. Who the hell wants to get involved now with a story like this that's developed?

Mr. Chair, Clerk, and everyone around here, this brings back horrible memories for me. As a broadcaster in my community, I felt it was my job. I heard the whispers of Graham James, and now I'm living this again.

To me, as we have summer camps going on, and the CHL is going to have the Memorial Cup coming up here in a couple of weeks, it's all going to be good. We're going to have four teams compete for the Memorial Cup. The CHL will be excited because we have a national championship, where, believe me, they shouldn't be excited—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Mr. Waugh, I do apologize. I didn't want to interrupt you.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I move for adjournment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

We have come to the end of our resources for this meeting.

We are adjourned.