Canadian Heritage Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Kelly Favro]

Thank you.

The protection that is offered by an NDA and a publication ban sometimes helps people come forward, such as the woman from the 2018 world junior's case. It gives them a sense of confidence that they can continue their life in sport, or just life in general, without repercussions or being singled out or set aside. On the flip side, publication ban laws and NDAs really don't allow someone to come forward to an organization and say, “I was abused by that person.” I mean, it protects the accused a lot more. It would be great to see safe sport provide a legal adviser to these victims. Then they could seek advice on how to navigate making a complaint, under solicitor-client privilege, when it comes down to having to get around these non-disclosure agreements. However, the key thing that most people want to do is just warn people that someone else is out there, that someone else is hurting.

I think it's fair to say that, for most of us who have been sexually assaulted or assaulted by a person in trust, we are not their first victims, and we're certainly not their last. So, yes—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Favro. We must move on.

We'll go to the second round, where we'll do five minutes for the Liberals and the Conservatives, and two and half for the Bloc and the NDP. Then we'll wrap it up as we prepare for Swimming Canada.

We'll start the second round with Mr. Martel for five minutes, please.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

The testimony is very distressing. We always wonder how it's possible that the abuses are repeated so often. This surprises a lot of people, but a number of witnesses have been telling us the same thing for several years because nothing has been done.

Ms. Gaertner, the fund set up by Hockey Canada to reach out-of-court settlements with victims doesn't surprise you, does it?

[Jessica Gaertner]

Not at all. Again, we go back to their trying to distance themselves from liability. How do you do that? You make sure that you have funds available to pay off whatever needs to happen. For me, though, it wasn't necessarily just that there was a slush fund that was set aside. It was just the pattern of silencing and how they felt that paying somebody off and going through this process and not dealing with the actual perpetrators.... We don't know the names of the perpetrators of that case yet or of any of the other cases before that.

So, it's the silencing that all of that caused that is very harmful because we don't know if any of those people have caused others harm, too.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Ms. Gaertner, why are coaches or abusers protected? Is there a shortage of coaches? Are reputations being protected?

Today, I find it hard to believe that no one is reprimanded and that people who commit these acts are being protected. Why is that? Is there no communication between the top and the bottom of the hierarchy? What is this cover-up? What's the purpose of that?

In hockey, when a coach loses 10 games, he's fired because he's not doing the job expected of him. However, there are other areas where coaches aren't doing the job they're expected to do, and yet they keep their jobs. Why is that? What are your thoughts on that?

[Jessica Gaertner]

I think there's also, I mentioned, “unqualified right” to participate in sport. It's across the board. It's not just coaches. It's officials. It's staff. It's physiotherapists. It's anyone who is involved in the process. They almost treat it as if there is that right that they should be able to participate. Again, they go into the pseudo-court mechanism where they believe that they must have fairness and must be able to allow these people to continue. Quite frankly, if it's a coach who is winning or if it's a player who is the star player, why wouldn't they protect them? They want them to succeed. They want their team to win. They want what's best for the glory, right? That's what they're there for at the end of the day.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Ms. Khoury, do you think the program announced by the Minister could improve the situation?

I see you smiling. Is what she announced going to get us anywhere?

[Rebecca Khoury]

Thank you for the question.

For the past four or five years, we've rushed things in order to come up with solutions, we've rushed to organize a meeting, we've brought together everyone in sport, we ask ourselves questions, then we draw up a list, and we say that we have the matter in hand. However, no one talks to one another, and the organizations that are set up to find solutions aren't the right ones. They aren't the right people around the table, they aren't asking the right questions, and they don't have the right skills. So we're not getting to the right solution.

So basically, no, I don't think it's going to do much. Why? Because, in its current form, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner is doing more harm than good. It's poorly set up, poorly thought out and poorly implemented. It creates more problems than it solves. We need to stop all this and think, so when we take action, the measures will be put in place properly—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Ms. Khoury, I'm sorry. I have to cut you off. We're at the five-minute mark.

We have to go to the Liberals with Lisa Hepfner for five minutes.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to clarify, for the record, what Minister St-Onge said about non-disclosure agreements. Three weeks ago she said, as part of her announcement, that non-disclosure agreements cannot be used for the purpose of silencing victims, and funding from Sport Canada would depend on respect for that criterion. I just wanted to be clear with everyone that I think we're all on the same page when it comes to non-disclosure agreements and silencing victims. I don't think anyone thinks that is appropriate or good in this day and age.

Ms. Favro, I'd like to turn to you. You had some interesting ideas. We've been talking about this idea of a registry, and how it would work. It's difficult to envision how it would work, because how do you bring in people who haven't had complaints brought against them again? How do we prevent people who've had valid complaints against them from moving to other jurisdictions or other countries? You also talked about the difference between having provincial jurisdiction and federal access to those same lists.

Would you talk to us a bit more about how you envision a registry like that actually functioning?

[Kelly Favro]

I have ideas, but I think that most would definitely be above my pay grade.

First and foremost, you need a safe environment to be established for someone to come forward when speaking out. In terms of a database, or a registry that can be shared nationwide, there's software out there that would allow us to communicate—with me in B.C. and you guys in Ottawa. I'm confident there would be something that could be easily built by a tech company out there to make this database.

What I'd like to see within the database is that no matter how small the complaints, no matter how minor the complaints, they all need to be taken very seriously. If a person goes to apply for another role within safe sport, it should be as easy as calling somebody for references asking, “Hey, do you know Joe? Do you have anything about Joe?” If the response is, “Yes, he's great on the ice, but he has this one little mark against him”, that should be a red flag for anybody.

There needs to be this sort of open communication between sports organizations and personnel. It's a reflection of what you deem as acceptable as an organization should you choose to bring people on, knowing that they have a mark on their file.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Would you have any other recommendations that you would like to see come out of this committee study that would help inform a national inquiry?

[Kelly Favro]

I'd like to see the process for victims coming forward be a bit easier. I'd like for folks to recognize that it is not easy speaking about these topics. I'm in a very fortunate position, as my particular assault took place eight years ago. I'm comfortable speaking about it, but, certainly, in the first six months, I was not comfortable speaking about it.

Everybody who comes forward needs to feel safe, encouraged and, most importantly, believed. I don't feel as though there's a lot of trauma-informed services or support for the victims who are coming forward with stories of abuse, be they current or historical. I believe the third party investigators are out protecting the best interests of the organization, and they just see another person in front of them complaining, and no one is taking it seriously.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.

You're talking again about the third party, not if we had a national inquiry. Those are separate.

I'd like to turn to some other witnesses who we have today.

Ms. Gaertner, are there any recommendations in particular? We don't have a whole lot of time, but do you have something as a recommendation for a national inquiry that would help inform us?

[Jessica Gaertner]

Again, as I've said, I've seen quite a few coaches, officials and players who just get moved around to different jurisdictions. We need to ensure that there is a database and a process, something as simple as a reference check.

We also need something that puts the children, the players and athletes first, and not the organizations. That is what we're seeing across the board. We're putting the organizations first and giving them far more rights than the children and the athletes.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you very much. We've reached the five-minute mark.

We'll go to Mr. Lemire for two and a half minutes for the Bloc.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will conclude this part by stressing the importance of an independent public inquiry. In particular, I want to emphasize that victims should be given the option of testifying or not, anonymously or publicly. Essentially, it should be their choice.

Ms. Worley, thank you for being with us.

I'd like to talk about the problem of foreign interference in the Canadian sport system. This is a major concern, as you've clearly illustrated.

We see that the Olympic movement, which includes the International Olympic Committee and the Canadian Olympic Committee, plays a role in promoting the autonomy of sport. However, there are schemes that often protect human rights violations. Organizations often fail to assume their responsibilities.

In Canada, you're a survivor, and you've been smart enough to act and stay strong. So you're a great ally for us and a great help. I can see how immense your accomplishments are. You can be proud to stand up and speak out against unsafe practices for all athletes. To me, given everything you've been through, you're a hero and, obviously, a role model.

If we were to remember just one of your accomplishments, it would be the fact that an athlete cannot escape the obligation to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and, therefore, be able to fight her legal battle before a court in her own country. Human rights tribunals are the only tribunals competent to examine situations of abuse and mistreatment.

You are here to clarify certain concepts, namely, liability and brand protection. Could you clarify those concepts for us in the context of autonomy in sport and foreign interference?

[Kristen Worley]

Thank you, Mr. Lemire. Thank you for your very kind comments. I really appreciate them very much.

It has been a long journey, over two decades, to where I'm sitting here today. It does bring me a little bit of closure on the journey I've had. I've worked in this space for a very long time. I've had to go the road on my own because of the experience I've had. The problems that we're seeing are being elevated through this committee review of what's been going on systemically for decades.

It really comes down to the issue around foreign interference. It really is the biggest issue. Really, a lot of the issues that we're seeing here today and we're talking about are things that have occurred because of it, when we talk about the autonomous system and the idea of the Olympic movement as being the foundation of the Canadian sport system.

The human responses that we're seeing and the impact on the thousands of traumatized athletes that we're seeing, many of whom have been witnesses here over the last year, reflect the problem. We now need to be talking about the issues of how we got here.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Kristen.

I have to move on. It's a two-and-a half-minute hard stop.

We're going go to the NDP now for two and a half minutes.

Bonita Zarrillo is joining us.

Welcome. You have two and a half minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm going to start with a question for Rebecca Khoury, who is online.

This is just about what sort of supports are needed. I have even heard some testimony on the legal costs of being able to do this. I wonder if you wouldn't mind just sharing what kind of victim support you feel is needed. You could include some of that legal support, because sometimes money talks.

[Rebecca Khoury]

Money always talks. Money is one of the biggest reasons we're in this complete nightmare.

Absolutely, I think that people need to be able to be supported and find a safe space. That means that there be someone who accompanies them, like a survivor advocate, and somebody like a legal representative. Those are the basics. After that, it's how they can be connected to other survivors in order to be able to get through these complaints much more easily. Now we're focusing just on the people who come forward and put in a complaint. It's a combination of pieces.

What we see at the The Spirit of Trust and the work that we've started to do is that you accompany people, you listen to them, believe them and give them resources. They do need to have a survivor advocate with them and legal representation in order to be very clear on what the paths they have in front of them are. They need somebody who understands jurisdiction and process and someone who will speak trauma-informed talk and will be able to support them.

Does that answer your question?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

It does.

I want to go back to having that legal support. Who pays for that?

[Rebecca Khoury]

The concept and the idea at The Spirit of Trust are that we want to develop a legal fund. We want to have the opportunity to be able to connect these survivors not only with the advocate, but also with the legal piece.

That's our wish. That's the wish list. The wish list is that this organization we're putting together stands independently from the system and has this array of support, and that's taken care of within the organization itself, so that the individual—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Rebecca, I have to move on, but before we do, could you table a briefing that recaps your organization, The Spirit of Trust? You have some goals that you've set out for safe sport. Could I ask you, on behalf of all committee members here, to table that for us to have a comprehensive look at?

I want to thank you, Jessica, Kelly and Kristen very much.

Yes, Ms. Zarrillo, go ahead.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Chair, could I also request from My Voice, My Choice a similar report, if they have one?