Evidence of meeting #85 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 swimming.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kristen Worley  Former Elite Athlete and Advocate, As an Individual
Jessica Gaertner  Advocate, My Voice, My Choice
Kelly Favro  Co-Founder, My Voice, My Choice, As an Individual
Rebecca Khoury  Founder, The Spirit of Trust
Suzanne Paulins  Acting Chief Executive Officer, Swimming Canada
Clerk of the Committee  Geneviève Desjardins

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to start this meeting. I will chair the full two hours here this morning.

I welcome everyone to meeting 85 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded, traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, September 20, 2022, the committee is meeting to continue its study on safe sport in Canada.

We have a number of guests on video conference.

You will see on the lower right side of your screen a globe, and that is for interpretation—English and French—and you make your choice on that, Kelly and Rebecca, as you are on video conference here with us today.

For the first hour, we have Kristen Worley, a former elite athlete and advocate. She's with us live.

Thank you, Kristen.

We also have, from My Voice, My Choice, Kelly Favro by video conference, the co-founder, and Jessica Gaertner, advocate.

Moreover, from The Spirit of Trust, we have Rebecca Khoury, the founder. She is also here by video conference.

The three groups will have five minutes each to start their presentation.

Ms. Worley, you may now proceed with your five-minute opening statement. Thank you.

11 a.m.

Kristen Worley Former Elite Athlete and Advocate, As an Individual

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's an honour to be here today as a participant in the standing committee's review on safe sport in Canada, as a recognized survivor by the International Olympic Committee, sharing my lived experience from over two decades on and off the field of play.

My experience is about abuse, trauma, maltreatment, collusion, the use of wilful blindness, the lack of state responsibility, gross liability, brand protection and foreign interference, while validating the importance of civil courts and tribunals in Canadian sport to ensure the independent access to remedies.

In 2005, I would be the first athlete in the world to be gender tested under the IOC's policy, where I would be violated as a predetermination of my participation in cycling. Canada is a signatory to the Olympic Movement, which is found in Canada's sport system. They felt they could, that they had a right, and I deserved it, while they knew nothing.

The IOC is given blind trust under the autonomy of sport under which the IOC operates, guiding and regulating sport federations.

In 2008, realizing Canada had no connection to the leadership of the IOC, I personally convened a conference call with the leadership of Canadian sport and the IOC. Dr. Patrick Schamasch, who was unable to answer the medical questions, as one of the authors, became flustered, admitting that the IOC had never done any research for the published policy. In that moment, Ottawa realized they'd raped me.

Justice and Sport Canada, collectively, did no due diligence upholding the state obligation in respect of protecting and fulfilling human rights as a result of international customary human rights law, before adopting a policy from a foreign entity.

The cover-up would come fast and furious from employees of Sport Canada, the CCES, Cycling Canada, COC members, CEOs of the UCI, and even a cease and desist order from WADA's CEO John Fahey. I've never met John Fahey.

They blacklisted me to prevent the world from knowing what they had done and what I knew. A united front from Ottawa, Montreal to Lausanne, their sole intent was to protect the IOC from “civil, human rights exposure and consequential impact to the Olympic brand”, preserving at all cost the autonomous structure within which they operate outside the civil law and society as a whole—a behaviour familiar to the mob.

The IOC is a not a sporting organization; they are a brokerage business in sporting event management and do not run a single sport. The COC is a marketing franchisee, controlling the IOC's business channels in the Canadian marketplace selling the idealism of Olympism—utilizing the autonomous system.

By 2014, I would walk away from elite sport as my body had completely failed me. I decoupled myself from their autonomy. The next action I sought was expertise from CAS. They stated, “We are not a court of law and such cases need to be heard within civil courts and human rights tribunals.” They directed me to seek expertise in civil law and human rights.

I would seek legal counsel in Toronto on June 30, 2015, where the IOC, UCI, Cycling Canada, Cycling Ontario would be served...and WADA was subsequently served in January 2016 as a fifth respondent.

Thomas Bach would directly attack the survivor, suggesting that if I were successful “It would impact IOC's Swiss sovereignty, impacting the future Olympic movement”, and that “this was a sport issue and should be heard at the CAS.” Bach knew I had found the Achilles' heel. The IOC argued jurisdictional reach, and the HRTO denied their application.

The IOC's next step was inconceivable, “choosing to alter the policy without research” as a legal scheme to mitigate liability within a court system where they could no longer politicize nor control the outcome. They had to come with science, which they didn't have.

By pushing them outside the autonomous system, they were made to care. Ottawa, including the broadcasting licensee of the Olympic games, the CBC, remained silent, limiting public awareness of the IOC's presence in Canada. I would go it alone. The IOC would focus to hit the survivor with a bigger hammer.

On February 29, 2016, in the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, the IOC would present their policy into evidence, which was firmly rejected. They would lose the day and be ordered to appear in the HRTO with all the other respondents.

The IOC would hide, from sport, the outcome in Toronto, in an unsupported policy that would remain in place for five years, leading to worldwide consequence in sport and society, due to the IOC's concerns of statement against interest and impact to their brand.

The WADA lawyer at the HRTO proceedings weeks later said “We thought...Ms. Worley was going to give up.” They miscalculated the will of a survivor.

Their focus was to play a long game, utilizing the shield of the autonomy from the liability. Inevitably we would be successful preventing future physical harm and trauma experiences across the sporting globe.

Paul Melia, a panellist at the AthletesCAN safe sport meeting back in April 2019, chose the word “pioneer” when he confronted me in person, in an effort to relieve his anxieties as an abuser stating that I would never forget what he did to me, and I would have to live with it for the rest of my life.

Abuse in Canada's sport is systemic across the system in various forms. Indeed, “the autonomous system allows career abusers to reinvent themselves without accountability or oversight.”

By being here today in person, it was important to speak truth to power and for my own closure and not to live the life that Mr. Melia intended, releasing me from the carousel that they have kept me beholden to, while ensuring from this day forward that it never happens to anyone else of any age, at any level of sport participation in Canada.

Thank you.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Thank you very much.

We'll move now to My Voice, My Choice for five minutes. We have Jessica Gaertner live with us, and by video conference Kelly Favro, for five minutes.

11:05 a.m.

Jessica Gaertner Advocate, My Voice, My Choice

Thank you.

My name is Jessica. I'm an advocate for sexual assault survivors. I'm certified in trauma-informed practice and I hold a first-class honours degree in law. This is the first time I've advocated for myself.

My decision to be here today was not taken lightly. I made a choice between reaching a resolution with Hockey Canada via the ITP or using My Voice to stand beside Canadian athletes to plead with the government to help victims.

I don't want to see more half-hearted pity. I want change. I have significant concerns that the ITP process will cause many like me to consider rescinding and retracting complaints. It is not trauma-informed, or even trauma-respectful, and it greatly jeopardizes true legal processes. What good does that do?

I'm not an athlete, but I lodged a complaint to BC Hockey in 2021. The response was pathetic. I had no confidence in their ability to handle historical sexual assault complaints. The ITP accepted the complaint last year, but only because my husband, a coach and Hockey Canada member for over 18 years, interacts with the respondent in his work—not simply because the respondent is a member himself.

I was provided with very little information on how this process would go. Had I known, I would not have agreed to it. I have a very short time, so I will try to fit all of this in.

I was told that if the victim is not “in hockey” the misconduct policy may not apply and that survivor support services are not available to non-members.

My identity was not protected. My name and the allegation were simply emailed to the respondent with no safety or risk assessment carried out. You cannot lean on your support system, or speak about the process. I was left vulnerable and exposed. I was discouraged from reporting to the police until the investigation had finished, despite frequently stating I wished to do so.

The interviews were antagonistic to the point of bringing me to tears, cutting me off, speaking over me. There are significant risks of evidence contamination, with each party's evidence and responses relayed back and forth over several interviews and sometimes via email. It lacks integrity. But perhaps that is the point: The fine print suggests that the ITP and Hockey Canada are one and the same, after all.

The ITP deemed it appropriate to hold a hearing between the parties in which the respondent would receive submissions and disclosures of evidence and have the opportunity to directly ask questions of me. This is a sexual assault case. No matter how much I protest and tell them how harmful this is, they push for the victim to attend a meeting with the alleged assailant to talk it out. This is nothing short of cruel. They operate as a pseudo court without the legislative or personal protections. Victims are faced with a wall of lawyers and risk managers attempting to distance Hockey Canada from liability and the imbalance of protecting a respondent's unqualified right to participate in sport with that of protecting athletes and victims from harm.

There have been multiple people involved in this ITP process, none of whom are there to advocate or support victims, but all of them continue to profit from our trauma. The system has not changed. It is all the same people under different and entities and process, all conflicted by their own affiliations and personal interests. They may call it safe sport and sport integrity, but it is anything but.

Survivors are tired of fighting the system from every angle, but this one shouldn't be so hard.

I'll turn it over to Kelly.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Kelly, you've got two minutes.

11:10 a.m.

Kelly Favro Co-Founder, My Voice, My Choice, As an Individual

Thank you.

My name is Kelly Favro and I'm a survivor of sexual violence. I can only tell you this because I represented myself in BC Supreme Court in June 2021 where I won the right to say my name and identify myself as a victim in my own story.

I am here today because I have lived experience of how legally silencing complainants of sexual violence through publication bans or NDAs can have unintended consequences and how this can affect safe sport. Despite our being told that publication bans and NDAs are in our best interests, both carry thousands of dollars in fines or penalties, or possibly jail time should a victim breach a gag order.

It's important to note here that my perpetrator is not a member of any organized sports league, safe sport or Hockey Canada, but publication bans and their effects are not limited to those outside of professional athletics. David Shoemaker, the CEO of the Canadian Olympic Committee, testified here on June 1 that they do criminal record checks and have a selection committee that validates that.

Safe sport relies on criminal record checks to tell them if someone's been convicted of a sexual offence or crime, but those are only performed every three years, and they should be performed annually. It doesn't say anything about charges or arrests for sexual offences unless they work with vulnerable persons, and even then the victim would have to be a minor for it to show up. For those who don't have convictions, publication bans and NDAs prevent victims from filing complaints to members of safe sport.

Safe sport is operating in a similar manner to court systems in silencing victims with confidentiality agreements that prevent complainants from speaking to anyone about the complaint other than to seek legal advice or NDAs that are enforced upon parties once resolution is provided, thus preventing them from talking about it or even finding out if there are other victims of the same perpetrator. When someone reports someone for abuse, it is not the first time that person has abused someone, it's just the first time they've been reported. Trauma-informed approaches in working with victims and survivors of sexual violence needs to be higher on the safe sport to-do list.

There is a culture of silence, secrecy, privilege and protection surrounding the sexual abuses that take place in sports within Canada.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Please wrap up, Kelly.

11:10 a.m.

Co-Founder, My Voice, My Choice, As an Individual

Kelly Favro

No one will put themselves through this process for fun. Not being able to have the choice in sharing your story in the hope of protecting others from going through the same thing you did is one of the most helpless feelings in the world.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Our third group here this morning is The Spirit of Trust with Rebecca Khoury, the founder. She's on video conference, welcoming us this morning.

Go ahead, for five minutes.

11:10 a.m.

Rebecca Khoury Founder, The Spirit of Trust

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you once again for the opportunity to be part of this crucial study on safe sport in Canada.

The world of sport is in crisis. Canadian sport is in crisis. Make no mistake. Abuse in sports in all its forms is a systemic crisis, and it requires our immediate and undivided attention. Harm has already occurred and it's continuing to occur today. It will continue to occur tomorrow. We must act now, because now we know, and we must start taking care of our people now.

We know that as many as 70% of participants in sports will fall victim to at least one form of abuse during their sporting journey. The last record of sport participants in Canada dates from 2016 and stood at eight million people. Of that, 70% is 5.6 million people harmed.

Let that number sink in for a second or two. That's 5.6 million people harmed.

Put together all of the stories you've heard first-hand here, the ones you've just heard today, in the media and through friends and family. Even if we were to add the thousands of people who signed the petitions to request a national inquiry into sport—which should happen, actually—we are nowhere close to the actual number of people harmed in sport, with absolutely no end in sight and certainly no holistic solution on the table. “Urgency” doesn't even begin to describe the gravity of the systemic crisis we are facing.

I'm here today before you as the founder of The Spirit of Trust. It's the only charitable organization in the world that has developed a blueprint for a holistic and scalable model of care with a dedicated focus on empowering, supporting and safely guiding all survivors of any type of abuse in sport on their transformational journey.

We must start taking care of our people now. Won't you be part of that solution with us?

Let me tell you about our “why”. Why do we think we need an organization like The Spirit of Trust? It's because we wished we'd had it when we all went through our issues.

There's this urgent need to build capacity to empower the largest number of survivors on their paths to recovery. We're going to be able to do two things at once with this model of care. Number one, heal the past and present survivors in order to, number two, prevent the harm in the future. Healing is the best form of prevention.

We must exist because healing survivors has always been a non-negotiable part of the safe sport agenda, and it must be delivered independently from the sporting systems.

We must exist because the imbalance of powers must be addressed. Empowering, guiding and supporting survivors will be key for the scales to finally start to shift.

We must exist because we need to decrease the hardship on all survivors. We will build trust, foster hope and save lives.

What we know about healing from trauma is that it's a lifelong journey. It's a unique path for each and every one of us, but we have one common thread. It's us, the survivors. Whether it's Myriam, Amelia, Katherine, Guylaine, Kelly today, Trinea, Kristen, Jon or Ryan, it doesn't matter. The commonality is our lived experience. The key's to create safe and professional spaces to foster that human connection that will build trust, foster hope and save lives.

At the centrepiece of our scalable model of care there are evidence-based, holistic, survivor-led and expert-driven programs and tools that are developed, built and delivered for, with and by survivors. More specifically, they model the peer support concept that's very successfully used in the military and other high-intensity industries. That's at the core of our offerings.

Whether survivors will use the individual or group model, virtually or in-person, or the survivor advocate accompanying someone through a complaint process, all of these paths will exist individually or be used in combination with each other. Peer support will build trust, foster hope and save lives.

We will be able to deliver that through our partnerships, research and protocols. All survivors wanting to support others will be screened and trained, as well as supported, to offer the safest model of care.

Who's in the team of superheroes behind these initiatives? There are a ton of us, and we're all from diverse backgrounds, but we share a mandatory combination of things. You heard some of them today. They are lived experience with expertise, and the trauma-informed and human-centred lens.

Each of us is driven by ethics and courage. I want to put emphasis on these two words. It's ethics and courage. We all believe in the same thing, which is that our model of care is a must, as we need to start taking care of our people now. We will build trust, foster hope and save lives. It's a game-changer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Thank you, Rebecca.

We'll have two rounds. It looks like we have 40 minutes to question our panel.

We'll start with a six-minute round. Mr. Shields will lead it off for the Conservatives.

Go ahead, Martin.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the witnesses being here today both in person and on video.

The minister made a statement about non-disclosure agreements, saying that non-disclosure agreements or non-disparagement clauses should never be used to prevent athletes....

On that word “should”, everybody who pays attention to language knows the difference and knows that words matter: “Should” is not “shall”. What is your reaction to the minister's statement on publication bans and NDAs when she uses “should”?

Go ahead, Ms. Gaertner.

11:15 a.m.

Advocate, My Voice, My Choice

Jessica Gaertner

It should be “must”. They “must” not be used. Unfortunately, when you have an NDA or anything that prevents anyone from speaking, you have no idea if there are other harms that the person has caused. You have no idea if you can protect other people from those harms. It's “must”. They “must” be forbidden.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Ms. Favro...?

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh

Go ahead, Kelly. You were asked to respond.

11:20 a.m.

Co-Founder, My Voice, My Choice, As an Individual

Kelly Favro

I'm sorry. My apologies there.

I agree with everything that Jessica has just said. Words are important. Making sure that everybody understands what is required of them and leaving nothing up to interpretation is going to be key for anything that moves forward from these meetings. Yes, the word “must” must be in there. The wording is a good start, but we have a chance right now to make it better, and I hope we do so.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Favro and Ms. Gaertner, you also referred to hockey in the sense of this type of challenge that you have. What about the other sports that we have listened to, in a sense, and that apparently you've been following? Do you find the same challenge such that you would say this is symptomatic across national sports?

11:20 a.m.

Advocate, My Voice, My Choice

Jessica Gaertner

Absolutely: I have read every article and every story that's come out and I've watched every person come before this committee. Every single one of them has the same theme coming across the board on how they've been treated, how the system has treated them and the silencing and the additional harm and trauma that have been caused by going through any kind of complaints process with these systems as well.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

For example, when an organization sets out a third party place for the complaint to go to—and I think you're referring to your experience in this, in the sense that you have a legal background—you have a parent, probably, dealing with a minor of theirs. In the legal process, how does this set up the parent for failure or threat or challenges versus the person they're trying to deal with?

11:20 a.m.

Advocate, My Voice, My Choice

Jessica Gaertner

One party has direct access to legal advice and legal counsel, either through a criminal system or through this process itself, and it's never the victim. There were legal complexities that I found throughout the process. Even just the policies themselves leave so much room for interpretation. At the beginning of my process, I was sent the policies directly, with no explanation. I had to do it myself to interpret those. No one else was there to help.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

You're speaking of yourself, as you've said, from a legal background. If I go to a parent who is out there trying to protect their child and is not coming from that kind of background, what chance do they stand?

I'm looking for recommendations, as this committee is. When a sports organization says that it doesn't have a problem and they've set up a third party group for you to appeal through, what would your recommendation be for that process? We're hearing all the organizations say, “Hey, it's not our fault, because we have a third party to deal with this.”

11:20 a.m.

Advocate, My Voice, My Choice

Jessica Gaertner

I would say that even as adults, not just children, there is no trauma-informed process here either, so it's not just about the legal side, but also about having someone that's coming from it with understanding that the person you're dealing with has gone through trauma. There's no capacity there for the investigator or the third parties that are involved to treat them. Unfortunately, you have to treat them with a very different scope than you would treat anybody else, because of the situation they're in.

From a recommendation standpoint, there needs to be full support from day one that isn't dependent, and full legal advice that isn't dependent—having someone like a victim services worker who can actually help you through the process and say “this is what the policy says, these are the stages you're going to go through and these are the next steps”. It's someone who is your advocate throughout the complaints process, so that it's not just “here's this wall of lawyers and risk managers that you're going to battle with directly”, who, at the end of the day, are protecting the rights of the entity, the respondents and the members of the organization.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

That's a good point. I think often what we're dealing with is that it's the parent who is the advocate for their minor, who is a child, because we're talking about safe sport. It's not usually the person who has suffered through this, who is a minor, but the parent who is the advocate, so you have a ripple effect, so that it's not just that person who is victimized; it is extended. I think that's what you're trying to get at. What you're saying is that the support mechanisms need to be there in a number of ways.

11:20 a.m.

Advocate, My Voice, My Choice

Jessica Gaertner

Yes, that's correct.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Go ahead, Ms. Favro.