Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

You mentioned that if you don't get funding you'll have to make some cuts. I want to hear about some of the additional costs that the Special Olympians have, like equipment and chaperones, that average athletes don't have.

[Sharon Bollenbach]

That's a great question.

Many of our athletes have low socio-economic status as individuals with an intellectual disability. We offer our programs at little to no cost. No one is denied access to any of our Special Olympics programs because they can't afford them.

We as an organization are not receiving the bulk of our income from registration revenues. We're the ones paying the facility rentals, buying equipment, and as my colleague, Allison, mentioned we are seeing that facility rentals cost more post-COVID. Equipment costs are higher and all of those things that we're experiencing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Can you wrap up please, Ms. Bollenbach?

[Sharon Bollenbach]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Maybe you can get a chance to answer it when it's Mr. Housefather's turn or someone else's.

[Sharon Bollenbach]

Sure. All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Lewis.

We have Mr. Housefather, for the Liberals, for five minutes.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses. I really appreciate your contribution today.

Allison, our mutual friend Adam van Koeverden wanted to say hi. He's sorry he can't be with us right now.

You were just speaking in response to Ms. Lewis's questions about equity-deserving groups, and I wanted to highlight the community sport for all initiative, which seeks to remove barriers and increase sports participation for these equity-deserving groups, in particular Black, indigenous, racialized, LGBTQ2+ and women, etc. For the funding I believe the date to apply is April 4, 2022.

I wanted to check with Ms. Sandmeyer-Graves and Ms. Bollenbach. Are organizations you know about applying? Is Special Olympics going to apply?

Allison, maybe you could go first, and then Sharon.

[Allison Sandmeyer-Graves]

Sure. This has been a program that has been highly anticipated within the sport system. I think there's a lot of enthusiasm for the fact that it will be for community sport. It was a little bit unprecedented, to be honest, listening to our national sport organization counterparts talk about the importance of community sport and their concerns about how community sport had been negatively impacted, because they do see that it certainly has ripple effects throughout the system all the way to, of course, our performance at the Olympics and the Paralympics. It's very exciting.

I think what is going to be interesting to watch is that the federal government does not have a lot of existing mechanisms for getting funding to community sport. Its purview has historically been high-performance sports, that is, national teams.

Sharon and my organizations would be among some of the exceptions where we do work throughout the system. Getting money right to the communities is not something that we have a lot of experience with within the sport system. It's a lot of money. It's a very short period of time, so I think it will be very interesting to see how this progresses and proceeds and how effective it is. Of course, I'm very optimistic about that.

As I said in my comments, I hope that this is only the beginning and that we do in fact see mechanisms federally for continuing to support community sport, because it is under-resourced from a government perspective.

Sharon, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

[Sharon Bollenbach]

Yes, I feel the same way. I can say that we do have mechanisms to get down to our communities through Special Olympics. We work very closely with our provincial sport organizations, who are directly involved in communities.

To answer your question, the applications just came out last week or the week prior, so my team and I are exploring them. We're working with our chapter counterparts to look at how Special Olympics could benefit from this new funding model.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That's amazing. I think a lot of times people aren't aware of programs that actually do exist. I'll highlight another one that I'm aware of, the innovation initiative, which aims to address the challenges of participation and retention of girls and women in sports. I'm sure you're very familiar with that, Allison.

One of the things I wanted to raise is that a lot of times people don't know about these programs. We need to better communicate that they do exist, that they're out there, so people can actually apply.

I have one last question before the chair will end my time.

Allison—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one minute and 35 seconds.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Perfect. I have plenty of time for to ask a question and you to answer.

Allison, one of the things that has been the most effective in the United States for women's sports participation at the high school and college level has been Title IX. As a competitive athlete growing up on the national level, I saw in the United States the distinctions between how universities treated women's athletics versus what they did here because of that law.

Is there something at the provincial or federal level that should be done that is similar to Title IX?

[Allison Sandmeyer-Graves]

Absolutely. We're often very envious of our American counterparts with Title IX.

I think what it did was create a legal framework and also very clear expectations for equity within the broader educational space, so it really applies to sport, which takes place in an educational context. There are very clear expectations of that.

I think there's also a lot we can learn from the failures of Title IX. Very few colleges and universities are in compliance right now with it. Title IX has led to a collapse in women's coaches and a comparable rise in men's coaching opportunities, which is really paradoxical.

I think that there are clear expectations and accountability for meeting those expectations, and I would hope we would do a better job at it than the U.S. in implementation and learn from their lessons over the last 40 years.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much. That was bang on.

I think we have ended the sessions. I want to thank the witnesses for coming and taking the time.

I must say I was quite disturbed to find that the gap of 60¢ to the dollar for indigenous performers is still that wide. Moreover, I was absolutely blown away to find this private funding of 4% versus 96% for women versus men in sport. Maybe Anthony might have an idea in the question he asked, and maybe we can talk about some of that stuff because this is....

What I also heard repeatedly is that, if you're going to be a resilient community, you need technology, and that is a really big piece.

I want to thank you again for taking the time. I don't know what you're doing this evening, but I want to wish you all a happy Valentine's Day. Enjoy. Be loved. You are loved, I'm sure, by everyone even though you may not have a partner. Again, happy Valentine's Day, everyone.

I'm going to ask the witnesses to clear so we can move to Ms. Thomas' motion. We do have resources to take us to 5:45 p.m., but we must stop there.

Thank you.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

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

I want to say that I have to step out for a media interview, but I am being replaced by the extraordinary new member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Lisa Marie Barron. She will carry our standard through the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll miss you, Peter, obviously.

All the witnesses have left, so we can now move on.

Ms. Thomas, would you read your motion, please?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm hoping that this won't take too long. I'm looking to move my motion, which was put on notice last week. It reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the harms caused to children, women, and men by the ease of access to, and online viewing of, illegal sexually explicit material, and the extent to which online access to illegal sexually explicit material contributes to the prevalence of violence against women and girls and sex trafficking in Canada; that the committee hear from organizations, victims, and law enforcement experts; that the committee hold a minimum of four meetings to that end; that the committee consider legal frameworks to prevent the harm caused by online access to illegal sexually explicit material; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

Of course, this motion is made available on the committee's website and has been sent out by the Chair in both French and English.

The reason I'm bringing this motion forward is that I believe it's a topic that deserves consideration, and the heritage committee seems the most appropriate place to do this, mainly because it is in the minister's mandate letter, which includes a mandate to combat serious forms of harmful online content to protect Canadians and hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for the content they host, which, I hope you would agree with me, should include anything having to do with using minors in a sexually explicit manner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas.

I notice that Mr. Champoux would like to weigh in on this.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Certainly, Madam Chair.

I would like to ask Ms. Thomas a few questions. It is possible that the spirit of the motion has been somewhat modified in the French translation.

Let me explain. For example, the motion talks about “... une étude sur les méfaits que cause aux enfants, aux femmes et aux hommes la facilité d’accès...” A “méfait” is an act that is covered by the Criminal Code, and I think that, in the French translation, it should have been called a study on the “torts”—the harm caused to children. It is possible that a slight difference in the translation changes the meaning of the motion. So I want to make that clarification.

I would like to ask another question, perhaps to Ms. Thomas, but perhaps also to the law clerks. The motion proposes to look at the legal frameworks. In the English version, it says “consider legal frameworks.” I wonder if it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to consider this type of framework, or if it is that of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I would like to ask Ms. Thomas if she would like us to review the regulatory framework, such as the regulations that the CRTC might put in place, or if she would like us to review the legal framework.

If so, I would like to ask the law clerks if it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to undertake this type of study. Otherwise, I think it's a very relevant study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Marion or Gabrielle, would you like to take that on?

[Marion Ménard, Committee Researcher]

Mr. Champoux, at present, the CRTC website clearly states that the CRTC does not regulate the Internet. That could eventually change. So that's my answer, and that's also what the CRTC would tell you.