Canadian Heritage Committee on Dec. 13th, 2022

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

What Dr. Fry said is that we'll deal with this now, then suspend and go into committee.

Mr. Bittle, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you so much.

I have a number of concerns with the motion. I've addressed a lot of them in camera, so I will be very careful about what I say, but I've also been public with my concerns about the direction this committee is heading in.

It comes back to a situation where, after one of the meetings we had with Hockey Canada, I was in scrums, like many of us were after the committee meeting, and one of the reporters asked me questions. What are your recommendations for Hockey Canada? What are your recommendations from this committee? What do you think the committee is going to do going forward? I see that is point (v) in the motion. It was almost embarrassing to say, “We don't have any.”

We've heard from Hockey Canada witnesses, and we've been very good at showing to Canadians in a non-partisan way that Hockey Canada wasn't an organization that could be trusted. There was outstanding work done by members of the media to amplify that and to give us more information to go after and press Hockey Canada on, but we haven't even scratched the surface of the problems in sports in this country.

We haven't heard from experts. We haven't heard from academics. I know—and I don't know who else is the audience—that we have a representative from Gymnasts for Change in the gallery. We're not even mentioning other sports.

I know that it's Canada and it's hockey and that's the sport that's most likely to get the attention. It's the sport that's most likely to get the members of the media here to cover our committee meetings, which, with respect to them, can be occasionally dull—not when we're dealing with Hockey Canada but on other topics we've dealt with.

We owe it to kids to truly expand this. I don't know if for any meeting we've had we can really say to ourselves that we've made sports safer for kids. I think that was our goal. I think that, for all of us, when we started down this path and we heard about the horrific sexual assaults, we wanted to take action.

I don't want to speak for other members. Maybe I'll just speak for myself. I wanted to take action. The more that we heard about it.... We heard about the toxic culture in hockey. We heard about the issues in Hockey Canada. We've gone in a lot of different directions on Hockey Canada, especially in relation to their governance and in relation to how they operate and reserve funds and so on and so forth, but have we made hockey safer for kids? I don't know. I guess we'll see what the new board does, but I don't know that I have any recommendations for Hockey Canada.

We've just heard from Justice Cromwell, who made a number of recommendations and who is a highly respected jurist but ultimately has been paid by Hockey Canada to do this summary. I would love to hear from academics who study this, who have looked into Hockey Canada and who have looked into the hockey system in this country for decades and have things to say and things to tell us.

I think the CHL has gone almost completely unscathed from our view and, having seen reports, having seen issues and having heard evidence and stories about what's going on, there are some serious problems there. Hockey Canada doesn't control them. Hockey Canada borrows those players for a period of time.

My recommendation.... I guess I'll stop talking, because I see a number of others on the list, but let's go in camera. Let's really figure out a reasonable study. Let's expand it so that we have opportunities to call witnesses and opportunities to really build this and to have the minister appear if we have a broader study.

She has already appeared on the Hockey Canada issue, but I think that in terms of the study, which is “Safe Sport in Canada”, let's bring this forward. We need to have more than two meetings. I'm not the minister's parliamentary secretary. I don't know if she is available on these days.

Let's actually have a broader study. Let's protect kids. Let's talk about things like gymnastics, rugby, soccer, bobsleigh and all of the sports we're hearing about. This is a horrible incident. This is athlete-on-fan violence. That's a terrible thing. It deserves Parliament's attention. I commend all of my colleagues for the incredible work that they have done on this.

Most of the other stories that we're hearing from the other sports are coach-on-athlete violence, harassment and torment. Why aren't we dealing with that? Why isn't that at the centre of the these motions?

I truly think we need to expand this. This is my plea to members of the committee. Let's go in camera. Let's expand this. Call the minister and Sport Canada officials as part of that study. Let's also arm ourselves with the knowledge to ask those questions. Let's hear from academics. We're saying Sport Canada needs to do better. It probably does or it maybe does, but how?

We're asking Sport Canada to do our work for us to create a report. Then we'll critique the report and report back to the House of Commons. I think that's the reverse order. I think it should be incumbent on us as members of Parliament to be asking those questions, bringing in those witnesses and coming up with those recommendations.

I hope there isn't disagreement. Calling the minister and Sport Canada officials can be and should be part of a broader study on this. Let's hear from some of the other organizations as well. Let's actually do what we said we were going set out to do and protect kids.

I don't think we're doing that. I think we're falling well short of our goal. I don't think that's the intention and I don't want to suggest otherwise. I know Mr. Lemire has been steadfast in his desire and push for changes in sport. I think this is an opportunity where we can expand the study, not step on the toes of the status of women committee and actually have a broad study.

Now that we don't have any legislation in front of us—thank goodness—we can actually do a more thorough job of getting to the bottom of this by giving opportunities for witness lists and really digging down into the problems with sport.

I'll cede the floor because I see other hands up. We'll go from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Chris, you moved the motion to go in camera.

Is that what you moved?

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

I didn't move the motion. I'm hoping to hear from other members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If you move a motion to go in camera, there's no debate. We just go in camera.

We vote on it. That takes precedence over Martin's motion.

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

I didn't move it. I don't want it to appear that the government is trying to shut things down. I'd like to hear from my colleagues.

It is my request that others support that so we can really dig down into doing this and doing this properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's not a formal motion. All right.

You've ceded the floor. I think we have Ms. Gladu, Martin again and then Peter.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Absolutely, I think Mr. Bittle makes exactly the points of why we need to support this motion. I'm not at all opposed to adding more time. I think the intent to shine a light on what went on with Hockey Canada brought a lot more to light than maybe we were expecting.

One thing that will be really important is that this will be very similar to the sexual misconduct in the military investigations, where it was at defence committee at the same time that it was at status of women. We had to be very clear about the scope of what one was going to cover and the scope of what the other was going to cover. I think we would have to wait for the chairs to have that discussion.

My suggestion would be that this committee would be more appropriate to look at the governance that is needed. What is the governance from the federal government's point of view down to Sport Canada's point of view? Perhaps that lets status of women take a different direction, which may be the protection of survivors and some of the other things that go in place.

Definitely, I think we can just agree that we were going to have at least two meetings. It's going to start next year. Then at one of those meetings, perhaps we could get an update from the chair, who's had discussions with the chair of the status of women committee, to see where we will go from there. From there, we'll know how many witnesses, who we should call and that sort of thing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was listening to Mr. Bittle speak earlier, and we all agree. I think we all have the same goal.

In my view, Mr. Bittle sees this motion as something much more restrictive than it actually is. On the contrary, the motion is exactly in line with the arguments we have just heard.

The Minister of Sport is going to table a policy on sport that will be in place for about ten years. The least we can do to serve the athletic community and the sport community in Canada is to ensure that this new sport policy is as rigorous as possible and as responsive as possible to the expectations of the community.

We would like to know what is going to be in this policy. We are not asking for a final report, but we believe it would be highly relevant and useful to be able to make recommendations before the final version of this policy is tabled. This is our role as a committee. On the one hand, it allows us to ask questions of the minister and, on the other hand, as Ms. Gladu said earlier, it allows us to add meetings to meet with other sports organizations and federations.

We are expecting documents and minutes from several sports organizations by the end of the week. These will certainly give us new insights and arguments. So I don't feel at all that the two meetings we are requesting will close the file on safe sport in Canada. On the contrary, I think that it is in keeping with our work. This is not at all a way to shortcut the work.

In fact, I would venture to say that the more time passes on this sports issue, the more I feel that there should be a special committee formed by the House of Commons to get to the bottom of these things, because it takes much more time than the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage can give it. I believe we should be focusing more on this with a special committee, but maybe we should be making that request elsewhere.

When we come back from the holidays, what we are asking for as a committee is not complicated. We are not asking to restrict the right to speak or listen to sports federations, athletes' groups and people in the community. On the contrary, we want to know what is currently on the table for Minister St‑Onge and what she intends to put in her sport policy. We will be living with this policy for 10 years, so we need to make sure it is done right. That is the one and only purpose of this motion, which is very open-ended and very much in line with the spirit of the committee's work on the issue of sports over the last few months.

That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Peter.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have listened carefully to Mr. Bittle, Mr. Champoux and Ms. Gladu, and it seems to me that this is in line with what we are doing.

It is time to ask the minister to come back to the committee. It's a bit of a reporting stage. We had a discussion with the minister this summer. Now it's a matter of having another discussion with the minister early in the year.

This is also part of a larger study, and in this way we will be able to talk to the minister about the Canadian Sport Policy and see the changes that have been proposed for months. It seems to me that this will allow us, at the same time, to continue to broaden the scope of the discussion around national sports organizations beyond Hockey Canada. Unfortunately, it is not the only organization that has been implicated in the safe sport crisis.

Asking the minister to come back to our committee and report on the actions she has taken, since all of these shocking announcements and events were made public last spring, makes perfect sense to me.

I'll be supporting this motion because I think it's good to have this report back. I certainly understand Mr. Bittle's concerns, but I think we can incorporate this motion into the larger work that we have to do. Hopefully, we can vote on it and get this in place. Then we, of course, will have that important committee discussion about how to build around the minister's appearance, for the coming months.

I think all of us work very effectively together, Madam Chair, under your leadership, and I appreciate that about this committee. I think we can do what Mr. Champoux suggests and what Mr. Bittle suggests and build something that will allow us to get to the bottom of things and to where Canadians want to see us go, which is to keep pushing on the issue of safety in sports so that young athletes, all athletes—regardless of what sport they're involved in—are in an environment that is safe and that provides the kinds of supports that we all hope they would enjoy. That way, they can practice their sport without any concerns about some of the tragic consequences that we've seen in the last few years.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Peter.

Does anyone else want to weigh in on Martin's motion?

Go ahead, Chris.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Again, there seems to be a lot of discussion and goodwill that we need to do all of these things, but no one seems to do this. I apologize, but I think this is unintentionally the lazy way to do this.

First, I don't think the committee has the authority to demand a 10-year policy from the minister's office. I'm happy to be corrected on that. Why aren't we the ones recommending where Sport Canada should be going rather than a rushed report? If there even is the authority, we'll have a rushed report. We have the Christmas break coming. We'll have a rushed report and bring in the minister to then question her about the rushed report that is supposed to set out a 10-year policy plan for Sport Canada.

Why don't we hear from academics? Why don't we hear from experts, people with lived experience, about what they want to see rather than some officials, rushed over Christmas, trying to come up with a report that...? Because it's rushed, we're going to be critical of the minister when she appears, if she's even free these days. We found out about this motion today, I believe, during the meeting, and I don't—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, allow me interrupt Mr. Bittle to clarify the content of the motion.

I don't know if it is in the interpretation that the definition is lost, but we are not asking for the production of a report. What we are asking for is the draft sport policy that the minister has announced she will table in February, which will be in place from 2023 to 2033. We are not asking the minister to make a policy for 10 years; she has to table that already. So it's not a matter of a report, it's a matter of having the draft of what she will table so that we can come up with recommendations before this policy is formally put in place.

I just wanted to correct my colleague Mr. Bittle, because I hear him talking about a report. We do not want a report, we want to have the Canadian policy directions that the minister is working on and is due to table in February. There may be some confusion about the motion, so I wanted to clarify it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Chris, are you satisfied with Martin's explanation?

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

I appreciate the explanation. I think it goes back to our PROC days. I don't know if anyone was on PROC during the Simms protocol and the friendly interventions. I always appreciate Monsieur Champoux's interventions.

Again, at the end of the day, we're still in the same spot. We're calling the minister. Maybe she's available, maybe she's not. Maybe's she's available for one hour, or maybe two. Again, why don't we put our heads down and put forward a proper study, so that we can hear about it?

I take Ms. Gladu's point on not wanting to step on the toes of our colleagues at the status of women committee and the important work they're doing on sexual misconduct, but what we've heard in various sports goes well beyond sexual misconduct. We heard from Mr. Coteau on systemic racism in sport. Why are we so laser-focused on this when there are so many people who want to testify to our committee to tell us what's going on? They're desperate. I'm sure your offices are the same as mine, having heard from people who really want to be here before the committee.

We've called Hockey Canada now five or six times. It's important that we did, don't get me wrong. Again, the changes at Hockey Canada are directly related to the work of this committee and the work of journalists doing exceptional work out there.

There didn't seem to be any support to go in camera, which I appreciate. It's good to keep things open. However, I often find it's better when the cameras are off. Then the work can get done a lot quicker and bring us all together to try to figure out a study.

I will have to then move amendments on the fly, which I don't really want to do.

I would like to move a subamendment to the motion by removing section (1) and changing section (2) to allocate at least six meetings after the holidays to the study of safety in sport. I would then remove the rest. I would have a third point, which would be to invite the Minister of Sport, Ms. Pascale St-Onge, to testify before the conclusion of the study.

That might actually get us closer to where we need to be and to start hearing from experts to give the committee something really tangible to discuss. Then we can meet with the minister and discuss those tangible things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have an amendment on the floor to Martin's motion. The amendment suggests that we remove (1) and change (2) to allocate six meetings after the holidays in January and February—including asking the Minister of Sport to testify for a period of two hours with bureaucrats—and that we remove (3) and (4).

Is there any discussion on this amendment?

Martin, you have the floor.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Do we want to continue this in public?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We don't want to go in camera. We've spent half an hour not deciding where we want to go, so let's focus because we only have half an hour left.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would like to speak to the subamendment, Madam Chair.

If I understand correctly, there is either a misunderstanding of the spirit of the motion I tabled, or there is a genuine desire to ensure that the Minister of Sport does not appear before the committee before the release of her policy on the safe practice of sport in Canada.

In either case, I find it a bit of a shame. Personally, I think that the motion we are tabling today allows us to continue the work we have begun. It is a motion that is completely open and that will allow us, one day or another, to add other meetings, if we deem it relevant.

However, there is one point that is very important, and there is an argument that I want to put to the committee. Knowing what the minister has in mind in terms of her sports policy is going to be extremely relevant to the groups that we will want to receive and question. Knowing where the government is headed is going to allow those involved to make a lot more relevant comments about the recommendations we will have to make to the government.

Inviting witnesses, specialists and experts before we know what the minister plans to put in her sport policy is a bit like doing the job in reverse. Afterwards, we may want to invite these people back and ask them what they think. Knowing this in advance would give us much better tools to interview experts, groups and individuals and find out if it meets their expectations or confirms their fears. We would ask them if they think the sport environment will be improved by this policy, among other things.

In my view, the motion, without the subamendment, is complete. It is open-ended and does not limit the work of the committee in any way, quite the contrary.

I will not vote for the subamendment.