Canadian Heritage Committee on March 23rd, 2023

[Allison Forsyth, Chief Operating Officer, ITP Sport and Recreation Inc.]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members of this committee. Thank you for inviting us here today to share our knowledge of safe sport and the current landscape in our country.

My name is Allison Forsyth, and I co-founded Canada’s only full service safe sport consulting agency, ITP Sport & Recreation.

I am joined today in the room by my business partner Ilan Yampolsky. Ilan has worked in safeguarding children and safe sport for over 10 years, holding critical positions at Skate Canada and Tennis Canada and, prior to that, Scouts Canada.

I am a two-time Olympian, I am the mother of three young hockey players and I am a survivor of egregious sexual abuse within our Canadian sport system. If this horrific experience at the hands of a sexual predator weren’t enough, it was paralleled only by my experience as a whistle-blower, which left me completely and utterly gutted and unsupported in my trauma, in my seeking of justice and in getting the acknowledgement that the abuse even took place for an incredibly long time. Despite my best efforts, this man continued to be a part-time coach of children for an additional 17 years before a courageous fellow survivor came forward. This time, finally, he went to trial and was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

After our trial, a group of survivors, including me, came out of anonymity to dedicate ourselves to the end of maltreatment in sports, planting the seeds that led to this movement. Since then, I have worked with many government agencies at the federal level as an athlete survivor to begin effecting change.

ITP was formed in this process, as we recognized the many gaps in government mandates. We provide support and expertise to many organizations interested in taking the theoretical tenets and principles of safe sport and turning them into reality within their organizations.

Our aim here today is to share our expertise on the complex nature of safe sport, because it is complex. As a survivor, I had my own impression of what safe sport was, and this is what I know now: Safe sport is age-, gender- and participant-level-agnostic. It encompasses not one or two, but eight forms of maltreatment, as defined in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

However, over the past four years, I have learned—as we have—that this challenge is far deeper and far more difficult than we could have imagined. The reality is that our sports system has for decades been accepting of and conducive to maltreatment and abuse. Safe sport is not a problem to solve and it is not something to be fixed. Safe sport moving forward must be a critical component of every organization at every level of sport in our country.

For some of you, I appreciate that this movement may be new, but we’ve been at this in some capacity over the last five years. Over the course of this time, we have seen progress, yet this progress has been far too slow. We have seen a few organizations step up and embrace safe sport, but unfortunately, we have also seen way too many others put in place safe sport programming only because they had to do as a condition to receive funding. We've also seen organizations putting in only the minimum standards to tick the box and then move on.

The reality of safe sport is that there is no “got it done” when it comes to safeguarding our athletes. Abuse will never be prevented if we only focus on simply what to do once something horrific has already happened. There must be continuous education, enrolment and improvements.

From the yelling and berating of children, the extreme hazing most recently coming out of the QCHL and, of course, the egregious sexual assault of minors...all of this will continue unless we do something big.

How should we live safe sport? As part of our work, our company gets to the front lines. My role is to head up prevention. I go directly into their environments. I evaluate risks, such as governance, environmental risks, communication risks and accepted cultural norms. I also provide all stakeholders with participant-appropriate-level education and, as necessary, support shifts of behaviour.

We need to eliminate the conditions through which abuse could occur. We develop new systems, evaluate risk factors and provide education.

It is shocking to us how few organizations and participants understand the stages of grooming. Understanding the four steps of favouritism, personal bond, isolation and complicity are steps of grooming that every parent, coach, administrator and child athlete should know and understand.

We also provide independent case management to many organizations across the country. I am not privy to any complaint, as this division is separated from prevention. In this work, we use a third party whistle-blower intake company, as well as a third party investigation firm. It is essential that organizations do not manage their own complaints.

We need to push down the gas pedal and we need to do it quickly. Cases are coming in, and courageous survivors are coming forward more quickly than we can educate and put safeguarding and hiring measures in place. Coaches are becoming fearful of coaching, and we are losing officials on a daily basis.

Safe sport must have transparent, open communication to encourage everyone to come forward. We look forward to the day where “safe sport” is a positive term.

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

You can elaborate later on when you're asked a question. Thank you.

Now, I go to World Association of Icehockey Players Unions and Randall Gumbley.

You have five minutes, please, Mr. Gumbley.

[Randall Gumbley, Consultant, World Association of Icehockey Players Unions]

Madam Chair, I am Randy Gumbley a consultant with the World Association of Icehockey Players Unions.

Before I address this committee on the decades of various forms of abuse suffered by CHL players under the leadership of the pro hockey league, the Canadian Hockey League and its partner NSO, Hockey Canada, I'll say that I do so with the intention of creating awareness in order to create much needed change in the culture of hockey and sport in general, while protecting athletes' rights. I hope that this committee will be able to foster new-found trust for parents, athletes and sponsors within the amateur sporting system in Canada.

In 1968, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau appointed a task force to investigate amateur sport in Canada. The task force found that amateur sport should have no affiliation with pro sport. It demanded that immediate and drastic action be taken in the following areas: the binding of minors into contracts; contracts that deny players rights and indenture players into a form of slavery; and how major junior hockey was operating under the guise of the amateur system.

The Downey report recommended the following changes: prohibiting teams from entering into contracts with minors; restricting contracts that prohibit the players from having the freedom to associate both in inter league and intra league; and separating pro sport from the NSOs. These recommendations helped form what we know today as section 48 of the Competition Act.

Sadly, over a half century later, these very same issues are alive and well. These athletes are still at the mercy of the cartel hockey group.

In 1976, players playing in the CHL had entered into contracts that require them to pay 20% of their future earnings back to CHL clubs if they made the NHL.

In 2001, the Canada Revenue Agency tax court ruled that players in the CHL were employees and debunked the student amateur athlete classification from the CHL.

In 2013, the CHL was notified of wage and hour violations. The next step that the CHL took was extraordinary in nature. The CHL conspired with the NSO Hockey Canada to change the classification of players from professional to the highest level of non-professional. Then the league issued a memo to its clubs to no longer comply with the Canada Revenue Agency regulations. The QMJHL voided all player contracts that used to classify players as employees.

In 2014, finally, the CHL was sued for $180 million for wage and hour theft.

In 2018, at a Portland senate hearing, the CHL was informed by players of various forms of abuses in the league. The Portland government denied the WHL requests for employment standards changes. Weeks later, the CHL tried to intimidate spokespersons just days before a Quebec National Assembly hearing on employment laws by threatening the players with a libel suit if they spoke out against the abuses in sport.

In 2018, a criminal complaint was filed with the Competition Bureau of Canada, stemming from a clause in a player contract that demanded that the player pay a $500,000 release fee if he left the league.

From 2014 to 2020, the CHL, while using Hockey Canada's amateur insurance policies, defended their class action to the tune of about $20 million in legal plus another $15 million in settlement money, which came out of the amateur system.

The CHL managed to circumvent hour and wage laws in various provinces across Canada. No one questioned why, if the laws had to be changed, the existing laws weren't enforced,.

Hockey Canada and the CHL have managed to create a system where the CHL attempts to claim amateur status for financial gain, but maintains a pro system to systemically contaminate players from scholarship eligibility in the NCAA.

In 2018, 2019 and 2020, Hockey Canada, the IIHF and office of the minister of sport were informed of the various forms of abuses. This fell upon deaf ears.

In September of 2020, the players sued the NHL, Hockey Canada and CHL for anti-competitive acts.

In 2020, players also sued in a very high-profile case, which we know today was Daniel Carcillo and Garrett Taylor.

I ask you, where is the justice when athletes go to court, but the cartel is able to lobby officials to change laws during the middle of a trial?

Where is the justice when the Competition Bureau takes four years to act on a complaint, or when the NSO conspires with a pro sport league to deprive athletes of not only a wage but also of access to educational scholarships? Where is the justice when Hockey Canada assumes $125 million in a slush fund that is meant to be used for uninsurable events, but, when a referee suffers a severe, life-threatening, crippling spinal injury, Hockey Canada offers him $345 for a payment and said the insurance wouldn't cover him? That referee, Derrick Henderson, spent the next 10 years in courts trying to be paid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Gumbley. I'm so sorry to cut you off, but you have gone over time. Maybe you can elaborate on some of your points when you have the question-and-answer period.

Committee, we'll be able to have only two rounds, if we can go 15 minutes over time. We don't have the full two hours for this meeting, given the upcoming votes. We will start the questions and answers. The first round is six minutes each—and that is six minutes for the question and the answer.

We want to get this thing done, so I hope that everyone will be as concise as they can be in their questions and their answers.

I'm going to start the questioning with the Conservative Party and Rachel Thomas.

Ms. Thomas, you have six minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question here is for Ms. Kerr.

I had the opportunity to read through the briefing document you submitted to the committee in December. One of the sections is with regard to good governance in Canadian sports. You outline a number of important questions that need to be asked. One of them raises some questions about the lack of transparency and accountability in Canadian sports governance.

I'm wondering if you can highlight for us the main problem you see there.

[Dr. Gretchen Kerr]

On the issue of governance, first, there is the matter of athlete representation in governance and, secondly, there is the notion of accountability.

To highlight this, Sport Canada previously mandated NSOs to have independent harassment officers to deal with cases concerning safe sport. They required this in order to obtain their annual funding. Only one of the NSOs had an independent harassment officer 20 years later; yet every year their funding continued, so the question of accountability also comes into play in terms of the answer to your question.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you for highlighting that.

I'm just curious, then. If, in fact, that has not been followed through on—if that independent officer does not exist—what should be done in your estimation?

[Dr. Gretchen Kerr]

I think the wonderful progress that has been made to address that is the establishment of OSIC. As everyone has said, it's new; it's still in progress. Once it's up and running, we either need its extension or an equivalent model that will filter from the national level down to the provincial and community levels so that any sport participant across the country has access to an independent complaint mechanism, an independent person to whom they report their concerns.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Am I to understand that for 20 years there's been inadequate accountability in this area? Now, even with OSIC coming into effect in 2022, it's my understanding that today we have only three provinces that have signed on: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec. In fact, the deadline to sign on to OSIC is coming up. It's less than a month away now. Do I have that correct?

[Dr. Gretchen Kerr]

It was actually over 20 years that complaints were addressed by employees of the organization itself. It was most often the CEO of the sport organization, which, of course, presents all kinds of conflicts of interest. It's an explanation for why there's this culture of silence, as Professor Fowler mentioned, and why so few athletes ever bring their complaints forward.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

One of the concerns we've heard from athletes as well, though, is that they're not trusting of the fact that the process outlined involving OSIC is fully independent and that they can be fully transparent and be guaranteed that they're going to be protected should they whistle-blow or complain. What are your thoughts on that?

[Dr. Gretchen Kerr]

Yes, I've heard those concerns as well. As was mentioned by other panellists, OSIC needs time to establish itself and gain trust amongst the athletes.

On the independence question, to me it's a little bit like saying that Supreme Court justices are not independent because they are funded by the government. At some point, the notion of independence cannot be used in a case like this, but it will take time for OSIC to gain the trust of athletes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Forsyth, I would actually bring the question over to you as well, given that you have been an athlete and obviously are now on this side of wanting to receive and investigate complaints.

[Allison Forsyth]

As mentioned, I don't work on the complaints side of our business. I can respond for a minute about how I feel as an athlete about it, and then I'd like to pass it over to Ilan, if that's okay, because I don't work in complaints.

From an athlete perspective, I for one am very respectful of all the different opinions that athletes currently have on the notion of independence. I also know many athletes who are quite happy with OSIC and are not quite as vocal as some athletes who are not. In addition, as an athlete who had nowhere to report to but my CEO who hired the guy who abused me, I welcome any independent mechanism that can provide a service to the athletes.

What I fear from an athlete level is that if we get caught up in what I call “nuances”, which is maybe not a respectful term for many people who have different beliefs on the notion of true independence or whatever, we will slow the progress down and discourage any participant from coming forward and feeling safe to report their abuse.

I will pass it to Ilan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds to answer that.

[Ilan Yampolsky, Chief Executive Officer, ITP Sport and Recreation Inc.]

I agree with Gretchen on the definition of independence. We have to stop at some point. The majority of it has been defined by money exchanging hands between one organization and another, and there are ample examples. It's the same for the Supreme Court and it's the same for the financial audit of any organization that has been paid, from KPMG to Deloitte, that comes there independently.

I think in our case, we believe that professionalism and integrity are more important than subject matter expertise. My suggestion always was, and still is, to create an audit mechanism by the government, a regulatory mechanism like in any other industry, that will come to an organization like ours and many others to see if we are doing our job right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much. I think you can elaborate on that in a subsequent answer. The time is up.

Now we will go to the Liberals and Ms. Hepfner.

Lisa, you have six minutes, please.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for all being here today. I would begin my questions with Teresa Fowler.

I was interested in your recommendation that in Sport Canada we move sport to Health from Heritage, where it is now. Would you please elaborate on what you think that would do? It seems to me that it might take away this culture in sport of winning and being the best, and take it back to a place where everyone can feel comfortable in sport, regardless of their level of ability. It's about having fun and getting together with your friends. It's not necessarily about being excellent.

That's kind of the impression I got from your recommendation. I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

[Dr. Teresa Fowler]

Sure. Thank you for that question.

Forgive me for my ignorance with respect to how parliamentarians and portfolios work, but from a research lens, we have theory. As a critical theorist, my lens is a certain way. If I am a quantitative researcher, my lens is a different way.

Sport is unhealthy: I think we can all agree. That's why we're all here. That's why all this time and energy is happening. What happens if we change the lens away from pushing for podiums and away from winning at all costs toward one that really is what sport ought to be about?

The Aspen Institute has Project Play. They published a research report that walks through all the benefits that happen with sport. However, because sport remains a commodity and remains about chasing medals, we see that health gets pushed aside. We can see how this is bleeding into the education system. For example, in K-to-12 systems, we now have sport academies. We have children now climbing to get into these programs that really are not a health benefit. They're focused more on competition at an early age. The more we keep going early into this idea of winning medals at younger ages, we're losing the benefits of sport.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

How much impact, would you say, has that had on the problems we have with culture in sport in Canada today?

[Dr. Teresa Fowler]

From our research into men's ice hockey and in my experience as the parent of two athletes—two of our boys were competitive athletes—that's a big part of it.

I'm just starting a new research project. I was sitting on the sidelines at soccer tryouts last night, listening to parents trying to make sure their kids got the last two spots. There was a grandfather there with a video camera. He was videotaping their child at tryouts. What about the fun? Where are the smiles? Where's the joy?

In our research with hockey players.... Not once did any of those professional hockey players talk about the love and joy of the game of hockey. The only time they talked about aesthetic moments was when it was about trauma—when they were recalling an experience of abuse. That was the only time we got a sense of the smells and of why they were there. Not once did they talk about the love of hockey.

I think being competition-based is what's doing a great disservice to...what we're seeing today.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you. I think that's very valuable testimony.

Perhaps I will ask Dr. Gretchen Kerr to weigh in, in the same vein.

You also brought up the idea that we have a focus on athlete talent and winning, rather than on health, fun and other positive benefits people can get from sports.

[Dr. Gretchen Kerr]

Thank you.

We know the values that we see playing out in professional sport or at the Olympic level filter down to children's sport.

One of the areas we need to tackle is how sport in this country is funded. When we have programs like Own the Podium funding athletes and teams based primarily on their medal performances or potential for medal finishes, without consideration for the process by which those medals are achieved, it risks the focus on athlete health and well-being becoming very marginal or non-existent. It contributes to this “win at all costs” approach...based on the funding model.

I think there's also value in changing the narrative. Rather than focusing on performance excellence, suggest that the best avenue to obtain performance outcomes is through athlete health and well-being. That's changing the narrative across the sport landscape.

Again, the funding question has to be part of solving the safe sport challenge.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

I'll turn back to Allison Forsyth.

You mentioned that one of your tasks, in your business, is assessing governance risks within sports organizations. Could you tell us a bit about what those risks might look like? What are you looking for when you're assessing governance risks?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds, Ms. Forsyth.