Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 15th, 2022

[Bob Nicholson]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Peter, for the question.

We didn't have set guidelines on NDAs.

I'll go right to Dan Church. I can't say too much, because we have a signed NDA with him. It was a number of very touchy subjects that were discussed with the assistant coaches and with a number of players on the team. I am sure that was the reason why it came back to my desk to have an NDA signed. It was a recommendation from our HR and our senior staff.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to go to you, Mr. McLaughlin.

There's a labyrinth of funds and there are the balances of funds, including the national equity fund, the participants legacy trust fund and the stabilization fund. We have asked to find out what the fund balances are. Is that something you can provide to the committee?

My second question is around what you mentioned a few moments ago about Sport Canada. You seem to be on track to have Sport Canada funding re-established. Have you received confirmation from the federal government that they will be providing funds again to Hockey Canada?

[Pat McLaughlin]

I believe I stand corrected, Mr. Julian, but we have four requirements from Sport Canada. I know that we moved along on a number of them. We have not completed them.

We have not, to my knowledge, had any indication from Sport Canada that we're going to receive any funding. As this group knows, we have undergone an audit. We have a further two-year extension on that. I don't want to suggest that we're close to receiving our funds. I'm not sure where that stands. I know that we have four commitments.

We're happy to provide the balances of the funds that you've requested. I'll make sure that our staff does that.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

The time is up, Peter.

Now I'll go to the final group. That is the Conservatives and Rachael Thomas for five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. McLaughlin, would you agree to send an update on what those four principles are that you have been asked to abide by, or changes that you have been asked to make by Sport Canada? Where are you in terms of that journey?

[Pat McLaughlin]

Yes, I will for sure. Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

My question is for Mr. Nicholson.

In the Cromwell report, Justice Cromwell said he found that the “causes of the current crisis are not of recent origin.” Saying that they're “not of recent origin” points to the fact that actually it's an accumulation of factors over years.

You were CEO and president from 1998 to 2014, so the vast majority of those years were under your care, when we look at recent history. I am just wondering what responsibility you might take for the circumstances in which Hockey Canada currently finds itself with the sexual assault allegations that have been brought forward.

[Bob Nicholson]

I can only comment on the times that I was there on the sexual assault things that happened. I really felt that through Graham James and a couple of those other situations, we handled it correctly internally, from our legal...to our insurance, to our risk and safety management, but we didn't handle it correctly because we took so much of it in camera. When I look back at this, I look at all the documents we did on the negotiations on each one of those legal cases, and then we had to sit down with those victims. We were really thorough.

We were really thorough on that. I lived that. I know how many times I met with those victims. I wish we could change that we didn't go in camera—we did. We didn't have minutes taken. I think that's a big part of what Justice Cromwell was alluding to.

We had to focus more on the off-ice situations with players. I was dealing a lot with on-ice, the hitting from behind, the Brad Hornung situation. There was a lot of that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. McLaughlin, I was reading through the website, and there's this document with regard to the Cromwell report, the governance review. As I was reading it through, I found the language very interesting, and seeing as you're taking responsibility for that, I thought I would ask you this question.

The phrases that are used here talk a lot about.... I'll actually just quote one of them. It says the goal is “to rebuild the confidence of stakeholders and the public”. The document goes on to talk about basically the image of Hockey Canada and trying to reinstate that.

What I don't see, however, is any desire to actually rebuild the culture. Mr. Cromwell talks about a “toxic culture”, so I find it interesting that in this document that isn't addressed, which makes it look like, then, simply a PR stunt, a finessing of language, a desire to regain the trust of the public without actually making meaningful change within the inner culture of Hockey Canada. This document doesn't address that. Why?

[Pat McLaughlin]

I didn't write the document, and that's not to excuse myself from anything, Mrs. Thomas.

What I would say is that that's not the case. We have taken this very seriously. Justice Cromwell's work is very important to us. We've taken a number of steps to be better. We have a number of steps more to be better, and we need to get to the root cause analysis of the culture of hockey—and we're going to do that.

What I can say is that we have a lot of work to do. We've consulted with experts, and we have a lot more to do, as I've mentioned. That's our commitment to Canadians, and we have a lot to do to move forward and be the organization, again, that people expect of us. We can do that, but we do need help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds.

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

I'm just going to jump in here, Madam Chair.

Mr. Nicholson, the rumours are big in hockey. I know because the Graham James rumours surfaced long before he was charged. You talked about 2003 rumours. We've heard those rumours before.

When does Hockey Canada have to act on those rumours? In most cases the rumours are true, as in the case of Graham James, and now in 2003.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 10 seconds, please.

[Bob Nicholson]

Thank you for the question. It's a very delicate one, Kevin. You can't jump on it too much, because it's a rumour, but do your homework quickly and try to get to those sources and get the real, valid information so that you can.... I think moving quickly is really important, but you have to be careful with that, Kevin. I've been around hockey, as you have, and there are lots of rumours that aren't true, and we have to be cautious of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

That's the end of that round.

The final question time will be shared between Anthony Housefather and Chris Bittle.

Please be mindful that you do have only five minutes to share.

We will begin with Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I will be quick.

I want to come back to a question I had asked you previously, Mr. McLaughlin. I understand that you're not the person who writes the financials. I just want to again point out that the way the financials are currently worded, it says that the national equity fund is being used for “accidents and injuries involved in sanctioned hockey activities”. Would you agree with me that whatever happened in that hotel room in London in 2018 was not a sanctioned hockey activity?

[Pat McLaughlin]

It was not a sanctioned hockey activity. It was an activity that was not part of our hockey teams. It was a celebration for a number of teams that had achieved great accomplishments and other individuals. So, yes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Basically, you'd agree with me, then, that the published financials are misleading as to what this fund actually does and doesn't do. I would appreciate if you could take that back to the people in finance, Mr. Cairo and the others, who are writing these documents.

I'll pass it over to Mr. Bittle.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Nicholson, in your knowledge, can you advise how many times Hockey Canada required an NDA for any of its players under its umbrella?

[Bob Nicholson]

That's a really good question, Chris. There may have been under the women's Olympic team in 2014. They may have been asked, but I'm not sure if any were signed. Other than that, I don't know of any other situations with any of our national teams being asked to sign NDAs.

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

Thank you, Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. McLaughlin, I was hoping you could go back through the records of Hockey Canada and table with the committee how many times Hockey Canada has used an NDA with its players, for what purpose and in what years.

[Pat McLaughlin]

Thanks, Mr. Bittle. I will take that back to the organization.

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

Thank you so much.

We all have concern with the culture of hockey. I guess it was made abundantly clear that there's been no change, having watched what the NHL has done with Mitchell Miller...or I believe the Boston Bruins specifically, an organization that saw a player, saw the vile nature of the activity, and still tried to let them play despite the fact that there was a noted history.

I would turn back to our own national team and the pride that Canadians have in it. If this is still the culture in hockey at the highest level, what is it going to take for Hockey Canada to say no to our players? I appreciate the pressure to have the best team on the ice, but if at the highest levels they're still putting players in who shouldn't be there, then what will it take?

I don't think anyone has seen any consequences from what happened in London. What will it take for Hockey Canada to prohibit a player from wearing the maple leaf and representing Canada?

[Pat McLaughlin]

Is that for me, Mr. Bittle?