Evidence of meeting #61 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hockey.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you very much.
We'll move now to the Liberals.
Mr. Housefather, you have five minutes.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks again, Justice Cromwell.
I have a different line of questions, but before that, there was one section of your report that intrigued me that I want to delve into with you for one second.
One of the problems I identified that I was the most disturbed about was Hockey Canada's failure to minute important board decisions, whether taken during in camera meetings or otherwise. I noticed in your report that you said that wasn't necessarily a good practice, although you did note that there may be occasions where it might be appropriate. I can't imagine anywhere where it would be appropriate to not minute a decision of a board to settle a case. I can't see how that could be appropriate. Certainly, information related to the identification of a person could be excised.
Can you explain where you would think it would be appropriate for the board to actually make a decision to pay an amount to anyone and not minute that to have a future record of that decision?
11:05 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, As an Individual
I think the focus of my concern was on making sure the minutes were consistent with any legal obligation the organization had undertaken. Also, of course, one has to be cautious, as you would well appreciate, with regard to solicitor-client privilege issues because, presumably, the board is going to be acting on the basis of legal advice. I regret if I gave the impression that I thought there would be occasions where no minuting would be appropriate. I think I was trying to focus on some of the nuances of the practical difficulties of minuting, but as a general principle, I think you and I are on exactly the same page.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
No, I agree. That's why I was just.... I didn't understand exactly how it was drafted, then, because obviously, of course, they don't need to explain why they made that decision based on the advice of their lawyer that could be given in private. I just want to make sure that we all agree and that no organization in the country thinks, after reading the report, that it's okay to not minute decisions to settle a case.
Can I ask you another question?
I was intrigued by one of the things that you wrote in the report. Where you talk about the people responsible, you write:
It is also time for other entities and stakeholders to reflect on their own roles and responsibilities. Some who have been quick to announce their loss of confidence in Hockey Canada have been slow to acknowledge their own past contributions to its troubles. The underlying causes of the current crisis are not of recent origin. The Members have controlled who is on the Board.
Could you speak about that to say why you put that in there?
11:10 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, As an Individual
Absolutely.
I think if you carry on in the same area in the report.... It's in the introductory comments, page 13 of the English version. I apologize. I don't have the reference to the French in front of me. However, as you'll see, I say in that section that it certainly was not my role to point fingers or assign responsibility. The purpose of getting into this was to encourage all of the interveners, all of the stakeholders, sponsors, members, everyone at Sport Canada, everybody concerned about the health of sport in the country, to work together to solve some of these very tough systemic issues. It very much was not a finger-pointing exercise. It was a plea for people to work together on these systemic problems.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Agreed. I just wanted you to be able to get that out there on the record. I think that's a very important thing. We all have to pitch in from all of our vantage points.
Another thing that intrigued me is that you mention in the report that Sport Canada essentially may have missed governance problems at the organization, which is likely to be true. I do note that, in its grades, for example, Sport Canada gave a grade of one out of five to Hockey Canada for conflict of interest. It did flag certain things that were of concern.
Could you talk just briefly—because I know we only have a minute left—about the Sport Canada process?
I know that Ms. Gladu asked, and you said it wasn't your purview, but what can we do as a committee to give guidance to Sport Canada on how it can improve its process, based on what you learned with respect to Hockey Canada?
11:10 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, As an Individual
Far be it from me to advise parliamentarians on how to carry out their functions.
Let me simply say that the whole nature of regulation of sport and tying the issue of regulation to funding is a very important issue. It raises lots of issues about resources to carry out a regulatory function. Certainly we heard from individuals that they would favour a more robust regulatory environment. As I say, that was not something I felt competent to give an opinion on, but we certainly heard that from a number of sources.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you very much, Mr. Housefather.
We will move to the Bloc.
We have Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cromwell, allow me to go back to the issue of the makeup of the board of directors.
Should the nominating committee have taken into account the apparent conflict of interest of certain candidates, such as close ties with instances of gang rape in 2003, 2016 and 2018?
11:10 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, As an Individual
I can't make any comments on the issue of conflicts of interest, because I'm not aware of the facts.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you.
You were a judge within the justice system. You have a ton of experience.
Given the number of times that you name some Hockey Canada directors in your report, such as Mr. Glen McCurdie, and in light of all the facts that you noted, do you believe that there is sufficient evidence to enable participants to launch a lawsuit against Hockey Canada for having concealed funds, three to be precise?
Would it be worthwhile holding an inquiry on the way they have mismanaged funds throughout the years?
11:10 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, As an Individual
I will refrain from making comments on third-party liability.
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you.
We have done some digging, and it appears that Hockey Canada has not indicated whether or not it will adhere to the Canadian Sport Governance Code.
As a result, do you still recommend that Hockey Canada should adhere to the Code of Governance for Canadian Sport?
11:10 a.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Did you witness funds being used for real estate, such as the purchase of condominiums?
11:10 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, As an Individual
I have no knowledge of such dealings.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you.
I already have the answer for the next question that I was going to ask you.
I was not expecting such brief and punchy answers.
Thank you.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
All right. Peter gets the extra time.
We'll go for two and a half minutes to the NDP.
Mr. Julian.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.
I do hope you will give me that extra minute.
Justice Cromwell, I wanted to come to an issue that has been festering out there. I first asked Hockey Canada about this in the month of August, which is the issue of the compensation given to board members. A whistle-blower indicated there were luxury lunches of $5,000 for a board of 12 people, luxury hotels and fine jewellery, championship rings, at $3,000 each, provided to board members. We finally received an answer about the jewellery, which was that the whistle-blower was correct on the rings. For the luxury dining, the $5,000 board lunches, we have never received a response from Hockey Canada.
You point out in your report very clearly that you recommend that the board not be compensated, but what is your feeling about this type of compensation the board has received? Did you come across these examples? Is there any confirmation of these fairly significant amounts, particularly when we talk about hockey parents across the country who scrimp and save to put their daughters or sons into Hockey Canada programs?
The allegations seem a bit rich in terms of board spending.
What is your reaction to this, and is this why you were suggesting it is important that the board not be compensated?
11:15 a.m.
Senior Counsel, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, As an Individual
That's a big question. I'll try to be as succinct as I can.
Number one, as I mentioned earlier, I was certainly not engaged in any kind of forensic audit, and I was not engaged in any review at the level of expense policies of board members, so I really can't be of much assistance to you on that.
What I can say, though, at the more general level, is that it's important for a not-for-profit organization to have a robust policy framework so that what is permissible and what isn't is transparent and known to all directors. This particular issue did not play into my thinking about the advice I gave that the current directors not put their names forward for re-election.