Canadian Heritage Committee on June 5th, 2023

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Be quick, Kelly, if you don't mind.

[Kelly Favro]

I just want to add to this.

The public has a right to know who in positions of power are around children and youth. It's up to them to determine what the parents' choice should be and if they want to be associated with that particular organization.

Again, the idea behind safeguarding children and youth—and adults—from abusers in sport needs all teams, all organizations, on board here. I would like to see a requirement for all teams and all complaints, no matter how minor, to be recorded to make sure—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

We're going to move on. You'll maybe have questions later that you can elaborate on.

We'll have six minutes with Tim Louis from the Liberal Party.

Tim, you have the floor.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here for this important testimony. We're hearing a lot of themes, and they're chilling.

I'd start with My Voice, My Choice.

Ms. Favro, just out of respect, I want you to finish your comment, if you will, where you were saying that no matter how small a complaint or issue is, it should be recorded. If you don't mind expanding on that, I'd like to give you the time.

[Kelly Favro]

Thank you. I very much appreciate that.

I would like to see some penalty for teams and organizations that do not take these reports seriously. It's kids who are getting hurt. You had 500 gymnasts come forward and say, “Somebody hurt me.” It was not just those 500; there had to have been more. There needs to be accountability for these teams and organizations that don't take these reports seriously.

Further to that, we need to recognize that when an incident occurs outside of sport by a member of an organization, like Hockey Canada, for example, having an abuser or sex offender—convicted or not—associated with that organization is a reflection of what is deemed acceptable. If they turn a blind eye to it just because someone isn't wearing the logo at the time they commit the offence, that puts others at risk and deters people from coming forward.

That was my final thought on that. Thank you very much.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I appreciate that. The format allows us to move quickly, but these are important conversations that take much longer. You can see how long this study is.

One of the challenges we've run into here at the federal level is that this is a multi-jurisdictional issue, so we have to work with provinces and territories as well. A lot of these abuse cases fall under their jurisdiction, especially at the beginning age when parents leave those small children in gymnastics, hockey or other sports.

How can we strike a balance? At the federal level, we can only handle a few thousand athletes at that kind of level; a lot of them are at provincial and territorial level. What are some of the best practices you can give as far as working together with provinces and territories is concerned?

[Kelly Favro]

Again, I think it's going to take open communication. I think it is going to take keeping something, like a database or an HR file, for example. For most folks, from what I'm gathering, once you're in safe sport, you are in safe sport for life. This is your job; this is your living.

Having a provincial registry that can be read nationally would probably be my biggest thing right now.

Jessica, I don't know if you want to add to that or not.

[Jessica Gaertner]

Absolutely. It needs to be something that's accessible to all. Again, I know from my husband working in hockey that there are many cases or incidents that have happened where the coach or staff member is just moved from province to province and can continue to be that harmful person, because they are only suspended from being in that particular province and not across the board.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I would like to bring in Ms. Khoury to this discussion, because it sounds like you have a lot of expertise in that as well.

What is the best way of setting up that pan-Canadian complaint system? How can we work together? If abusers are allowed to move from province to province, that's absolutely unacceptable. At the end of the day, we're trying to protect our children. What kind of system can we set up at a federal level that can encourage, compel—I'm not sure of the right word— the other jurisdictions to get on board?

[Rebecca Khoury]

At the end of the day, the most important piece right now is to support the people who are going through these things. As we put all of the bigger brains around the table, we should be thinking about what's the best structure we need to have. How do we create the list of people with the offences? How can we do it with all of these privacy things? It doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, we need to support people now. Our concern is guiding and helping people through the process. At the federal level, it's that continuous conversation. If you want to have a system that exists outside civil courts, criminal courts, human rights courts, you have to have a system that makes sense and that is truly connected. If it's not connected, it's not even worth having the discussion.

There are pros and cons to having an insular system. You heard Kristen today. She told you about taking things out of the independence of sport. That's where you get better justice. That's where people are heard. Listen, you have people at high levels of football in France and Haiti, and I don't know where, and then they're moved around. They even have bigger roles in international federations. It's a complete cesspool.

At the end of the day, we must now support the people who are going through the harm. We have to accompany them. For us, at The Spirit of Trust, that's our focus. We are focusing on helping the people now. What can we do to help them navigate?

We should be part of the conversation to make a better system. Sure, yes. When we look at what everybody has been asking for months, this national inquiry, get the right people around the table, and ask the right questions and get to the right solutions. We don't want the band-aid ones, not the checklists. We need the right solutions that are going to change foundationally the culture that's going to be impacted. Everything starts from underneath. It leads from the top.

You have to have a way to change the culture to make sure that you're embedding human-centred and trauma-informed pieces in everything we do. It doesn't sit next to it; it sits within it. Like the diversity piece, it's not a checklist; it has to be embedded.

I don't know if I helped you at all, Mr. Lewis, with that question. It's really about supporting people now as they're going through all of these egregious processes. Jessica mentioned it. You sit here, and you have this army of lawyers in front of you. These are people who trying to protect their own, or cover their own, you know what.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Ms. Khoury, but we have to move on.

Thank you, Tim.

We'll now move to the Bloc with Mr. Lemire for six minutes. Welcome.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To begin, I'd like to express my solidarity with the people back home affected by the wildfires, particularly those in Normétal and Saint-Lambert. I also stand with the people affected on the north shore, in northern Quebec, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and in northeastern Ontario. This situation affects me personally. I obviously intend to return to my region as of tomorrow, because I want to be there.

Before, though, I thought it was very important to be here in person.

When I heard the testimony of Ms. Da Silva Rondeau and Ms. McCormack, for example, I was particularly shocked to learn just how far organizations go to protect themselves.

I was pleased to receive an invitation from Laurel Collins, a member of the NDP, to attend a meeting with My Voice, My Choice, to discuss the process related to non-disclosure agreements and their adverse effects. That's where I met Ms. Favro and Ms. Gaertner.

As I told you before, I was particularly shocked by your testimony. I was impressed by your strength and prominence.

Thank you for being here today. I absolutely wanted to see you contribute to our study, given your expertise and your sensitivity.

I would like to address one particular point. It seems that the people involved in the complaint process are often lawyers. However, there are certain skills required when dealing with someone who has been a victim of a crime of this nature, and that element is missing.

You explained the importance of having an investigator or adjudicator who takes victims' trauma into account. Are their practices being properly monitored? Does it have enough oversight?

For example, the committee would have liked to hear Mr. Bard's testimony last week, but he did not appear. That said, can the sport community govern itself?

How are staff from the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner or the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada involved in this work?

How can lawyers be at the head of national sports organizations?

Finally, can you tell us about the dangers of contamination of evidence and conflicts of interest?

[Jessica Gaertner]

I'll try to remember all of those things.

First of all, going back to your question of the need to be trauma-informed in this process and having lawyers involved, I think that when you're going through the investigation process and you have had trauma, there's an understanding that the brain experiences something very different. The responses you may have may be different in that process, as well. Having an antagonistic approach where you're against the organization and feel that you're having to prove yourself to the organization with your complaint is difficult. It makes you feel as if you're up against this wall of lawyers and risk managers, and you have no chance.

In order to obtain evidence appropriately, there must be trust. There must be safety. There has to be a level of respect and understanding, as well.

From an evidence contamination point, having the investigators going back and forth with information—like, she said that he said this; he said this or he said that—and going back throughout the process, if that case is eventually sent to a criminal investigation or if it should go to a criminal investigation, the evidence is already there. It's already been contaminated and handed over, so the defence already has a pathway.

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

That's not to mention all the psychological pressure on your shoulders.

Ms. Favro, I'd like to hear your comments as well.

[Kelly Favro]

Yes, absolutely.

There's a real issue with the current system for survivors and victims coming forward where safety is non-negotiable. Most of us fear that seeking police or third party involvement can expose us and our families to retaliation, violence or other personal consequences for speaking out. The current system is really difficult to navigate with any sort of dignity. It's super retraumatizing, as well.

Historically and currently, there's a really bad track record of convicting those accused of sexual offences, despite statistics showing how common sexual offences are. When you have no trust in the system, it's really hard for people to come forward and put their trust in somebody else.

The accused also seems to have a lot more rights in any sort of legal process. Victim complainants are not provided with any sort of legal guidance or advice with respect to our rights, our options and where our participation level could be. We're not represented. We're technically no more than a witness to our crimes.

It's incredibly hard for those facing systemic barriers as well, such as those who are criminalized due to their race or religion, who don't speak English as a first language, who live with the threat of intimate partner violence or who live in poverty. There are a lot of key factors for why folks aren't coming forward.

We need to ensure that safe environments are established so that when somebody comes forward, they feel as if they're believed. They feel that they don't have to explain themselves 900 times to 900 different people. Folks need to have a choice and control in what happens with their name and their story.

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

There's also the fact that people who aren't lawyers find themselves before an army of lawyers who are there to defend the integrity of the machine and the brand.

In closing, I would like to point out that, following the testimony, Minister St‑Onge stated that she wanted to find answers to the NDA process, which is a major attack on victims, to whom I once again offer my co‑operation.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

Thank you very much. You're right on six minutes.

We'll move to the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Julian, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for coming forward and for their courage as we struggle with ending the crisis that we're seeing in Canadian sports.

I'll start with you, Ms. Gaertner.

I was stunned, listening to your testimony, that your identity was not protected and you were forced to confront your abuser—the perpetrator. In what kind of dysfunctional, dystopian system , is a victim forced to confront their abuser?

Subsequent to that, of course, we know that with non-disclosure agreements, after victims are exposed they are then muzzled.

I wanted you to share with us, if you can, what kind of impact this ITP process has had on your mental health.

I have a second question.

For the last year, we've been meeting and I think there's been a consensus on the committee around pushing Hockey Canada. There have been mass resignations. They are supposedly rebuilding.

Do you have any more confidence in the organization now than you might have had previously?

[Jessica Gaertner]

I'll start with your last question. Yes and no. I don't know enough about the people who are currently involved, but I know that they're not listening. I know they are not reaching out and speaking to people like me to understand what has happened and what they need to do to improve, and there are a lot of lovely words they're saying, but I haven't seen any action yet.

One of my other concerns is that in B.C. we have the BC Hockey League, which is now moving away from Hockey Canada into an unsanctioned sport in itself with no policies, no processes, no safe sport guidance, and that continues the harm.

From a mental health standpoint, I first initiated a complaint process in October 2021. We're now in June 2023. It took a year for anything to be done with my complaint in October of last year. I have been through the investigation process for about six months. My mental health has significantly declined. I barely left the house when the complaint was first emailed to the respondent with my name. I managed to convince them to at least use my maiden name, so that it wasn't easy to identify my husband in this process. That was a battle. There was no confidentiality clause in there. I had to ask for it to be included. It was terrible.

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

Thank you for sharing. I know this is very painful. I appreciate your sharing this with us. It's very important.

Ms. Worley, you spoke very eloquently about the blind trust in sports federations where they're basically given, carte blanche, a blank cheque. This has been a systemic problem. Sports federations haven't been overseen by the federal government at all, and that obviously needs to change.

How do we stop that protection, that blind trust in sports federations that basically allows them to do whatever the hell they want?

[Kristen Worley]

I think the issue we have is what we call the “autonomy of sport”, this autonomous system that allows them to work outside the civil system of law and civil society. That is really a systemic model that was been incurred by our integrating the Olympic movement into the design of our Canadian sport system.

What's happened is that that model of the court of arbitration, that system, that practice of mediation and arbitral law in a country designed around a sovereign foundation to it, to which that's being mitigated or modelled here in Canada as a very similar parallel.... Our Canadian sport system is a mini model of the Olympic system internationally. What happens is that that behaviour is a continuous system allowing the organizations to be able to work within this autonomy so that they don't have the oversight.

What I was able to do through my process... because they tried for nine years to be able to oppress me personally to limit that knowledge.... That came down not just from the national level, but from Sport Canada, through the World Anti-Doping Agency, through the UCI right up to the push.... It was the IOC driving it into Canada. It wasn't Canada driving it out to into the international sport system and integrating with the IOC about it. It was foreign interference coming in from the IOC. I feared because of what I knew and what happened to me and the world finding out about it.

The autonomous system is designed specifically to limit that liability and that brand impact to the IOC and to the Olympic movement.

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

Thank you very much for that. I have a question for Ms. Favro.

You also spoke eloquently to the point that when we're talking about abusers, it's not the first time of abuse; it's the first time reported. To what extent has the use of NDAs protected sports organizations and perpetrators rather than providing support to the victims?

[Kelly Favro]

When you silence somebody, you can't warn anybody—

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Could Ms. Favro raise her mike a bit so the interpreters can hear her better?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kevin Waugh]

That's good. You've got about 45 seconds.