Subcommittee on Sports-Related Concussions in Canada Committee on Nov. 21st, 2018

[The Chair, Mr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.)]

Welcome, everybody. We're going to call this meeting to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Subcommittee on Sports-Related Concussions in Canada is holding its second meeting today. With this meeting, the subcommittee is beginning its hearing of witnesses. The subcommittee should report to the Standing Committee on Health by June 2019 at the latest, at which time that standing committee will consider the report to present to the House.

We have some great members here from all parts of Canada and from urban, rural and suburban ridings. I can say that everybody who is here is committed to identifying ways that we can make sports safer for our communities, our athletes and our children.

On that, we have excellent panellists who will be presenting today. We have great witnesses.

Today's first witness is somebody who really needs no introduction, but I am going to introduce him.

I am pleased to welcome the Honourable Ken Wayne Dryden, a Canadian politician, lawyer, businessman, author and former National Hockey League goaltender. He's an officer of the Order of Canada and a member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Dryden was a member of Parliament from 2004 to 2011 and served as a cabinet minister from 2004 to 2006. In 2017, the Honourable Ken Dryden was named one of the 100 greatest NHL players in history. His book Game Change is described by The Globe and Mail as “a deep piece of investigative journalism” in response to concussions.

We welcome you, Mr. Dryden. You are no stranger to this place. You've been here many times as a parliamentarian and a minister, and today you are here as a witness. We look forward to hearing your testimony giving us insight into concussions and what you've been able to learn.

The members then will have an opportunity to ask their questions. They will get seven minutes each to ask you questions in this first panel.

Thank you, Mr. Dryden.

[Ken Dryden, Author, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Respected committee members, I am happy to be here today.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I'd like to start by talking about sports. I love sports. I love playing and I love watching, and I have all my life. If I had never played even one second for the Montreal Canadiens, I would look back today and think I had gotten out of sports everything there is to get.

Adults always think they have to justify sports. Sports are to get kids outside, to get them moving, to keep them busy and out of trouble. A century ago in England, it was said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. Sports were thought of as a test of manhood. That's how things were looked at and expressed at the time.

Sport built a sense of collective purpose. It taught teamwork. It pushed young people to rise to an occasion and find in themselves what they and no one else knew was there, and to aspire to and achieve something bigger than they are.

The point is that sport always was and is our own creation. It's what we did naturally from the beginning of time. We saw a rock and decided to kick it or hit it with a stick. It was about boys and men, and now it's about girls and women too. It's what we want it to be. It belongs to us. And though it has changed immensely over time, to a great extent it still fulfills these purposes and hopes. Because we created sport, if we don't like something about it, we change it, a little or a lot, in one direction or another.

In Montreal in 1875, a bunch of rugby players wanted a winter game to play. So they found some ice, some sticks and a lacrosse ball, and started to play. Then they wanted to show off this game they had created, so they decided to play a public game, with spectators, in the Victoria Skating Rink. But they had a problem: the Victoria rink had glass windows, and a lacrosse ball bounces. Spectators could be hit and windows could be broken. So they created a flat, round, wooden disc that stayed on the ice and didn't hurt. People said they couldn't play this game without a ball, with a dumb wooden disc; it would be impossible. But that's what they did.

This was also a game that was played without substitutions. Years later—maybe because the pace of play had picked up and players got tired, or maybe because lots of others wanted to play too—whatever the reason, it was decided that players could come off and others go on. People said they couldn't do that; it would be impossible. They said sports are a test of fitness and resolve, of character. They asked what kind of test allows players to come off when they're tired. But that's what they did.

Then, 54 years after that first game at McGill, it was also decided that you could now pass the puck forward, not just backward. That's right: For the first 54 years of hockey history, you could not pass the puck forward. Everybody said they couldn't play hockey that way, passing the puck ahead; that would be impossible. They said you have to earn your way up the ice with the puck, not by passing it. They asked what kind of test that is. But that's what they did.

Every one of these changes was impossible. The game is the game. You can't change the game. Well, imagine today a hockey game with a lacrosse ball, no substitution and no forward passing. You'd have to imagine it, because nobody would want to play it or watch it.

All sports change, and they keep changing. Hockey is far better than it ever was, played by far more skilful players, just as our other sports are. But now hockey is also more dangerous, just as some of our other sports are. That's why we're here. How can we help our sports to change again, to matter as much as they always have, to make them better still and less dangerous?

All of us at times, as parliamentarians or as everyday citizens, have looked back at injustices in the past—slavery, the absence of women's rights—and wondered how things could have been that way. How could we have gotten it so wrong? How could they have been so stupid? All of us know, too, that 50 or 100 years from now people will look back at us about something and wonder how we could have been so stupid. But, about what?

We will always get lots of things wrong, but what are the big ones, the ones we can't get wrong? I think, in sports, it's brain injuries. I think people will look back on us and say, “What were they thinking? Did they think that with all these crashing collisions nothing would happen, that there would be no consequences?”

We have a problem. Later in these hearings I'm sure someone will tell you exactly the dimensions of this problem: how many athletes are injured each year, in which sports, and with what measurable effect. I suspect that all of us here, and virtually every Canadian, know somebody who has been affected by head injuries. Maybe you have a daughter, or a son, or a grandson, or a granddaughter, or a friend, or a neighbour, or the child of a friend or a neighbour, someone close enough to you that when you hear about their injury, you cringe a little because you know how a hit to the head makes you feel and how it affects you. It's not nice, even when it lasts only a day or two. And when it lasts a few weeks—or months sometimes—it affects a life, changes a life, changes them, and changes you. A knee that limps is one thing. A brain that limps is another.

To get at this problem, to really get at it, first it's crucial for you and for all Canadians to hear about these life effects from the athletes themselves—not about how their performance has been affected, but their lives. It's not easy to listen to simple, everyday human accounts like this. They are tough. It's a lot easier to make the tough decisions without knowing the tough consequences—to make the tough decisions easy and wrong.

For you as parliamentarians and for other decision-makers, for all of us to do our jobs, we have to hear them, because it's only when we hear them that we know why we're here, that we know why these hearings matter, and that we know the stakes.

After hearing the athletes, we need to hear from the scientists, researchers and medical people about all the remarkable work they do: what they have learned, what we know, and also what we don't know, what we're working on, and what someday soon we will know or someday soon we won't.

We need to hear them talk about some of the other neurological conditions they also study that might be connected to head injuries—CTE, Parkinson's, ALS and others, and also some other conditions that are not life-ending but are life-diminishing and life-transforming, like memory loss, depression, anxiety, emotional disorders, and the loss of the ability to piece together even simple information to solve even basic problems—so we understand far better the true, full cost of these brain injuries.

We need to understand the possibilities of science, but we also need to understand its limits. We need to understand the role it plays and the role it doesn't and can't play.

First, we need to understand that science is not about knowing once and forever. Science is about knowing the best we can know at any particular moment. The world is flat until it isn't. Smoking is no big deal until it is.

Second, we need to understand that science comes after the fact—after an injury. Science isn't primarily about prevention. If, as scientists tell us, better diagnoses and better treatments rarely return an athlete to where they were before an injury, what does this mean, not for knee injuries, but for brain injuries?

Third, we need to understand that science takes time. That's how science works. However, games are played tomorrow.

Fourth, and this is crucial, we need to understand that in terms of brain injuries in sports, scientists don't make the decisions about what we do or don't do; sports decision-makers do that. Scientists are only able to make these decision-makers more aware, to inform them and guide them. Then it's up to these sports decision-makers to implement the information they provide, or not.

You, as parliamentarians, all the time have to make decisions based on the best of what you know at any moment, and then make better ones five years from now when you know better. That's all you can do, but you know that's what you must do. Why not sports decision-makers too?

We also need to hear from equipment manufacturers, from those who make helmets and mouthguards and those who test them, to see what effect they have and don't have. We need to understand their possibilities but also their limits. We need to examine every hope and every pet theory we have—there are a lot of them and they are everywhere—to know what is real and promising, and to know what is only a distraction, a waste of time, energy, attention, money and lives.

After we have heard from the athletes, the scientists, the equipment people, and everyone else who has a stake and a role to play in brain injuries in sports, after we know the best we can know, we need to hear from the sports decision-makers themselves. As Russian president Viktor Petrov said in an episode of this season's House of Cards, “Whoever decides is who you should to speak to.”

As I said at the beginning, these games are our own creation. They change all the time. They are played better all the time. We change them all the time.

We need to ask a question of these sports decision-makers. You've heard these athletes' stories. You've heard how their lives have been changed. You've heard these scientists and researchers, what they know and don't know, what they can do and can't do. You've heard from the equipment people. You, as decision-makers in your sport, have the authority over your game. You have the rules and regulations of your game, and the way it is played, in your hands. What are you doing about your game to make it just as exciting to play and to watch and to make it safer?

This is your job, your responsibility. “The game is the game, and you can't change the game.” Garbage. Impossibility isn't an answer; impossible was the decision taken decades ago that allowed substitutions or the forward pass, but they did it. Impossible is the status quo. Park impossibility at the door, and let's get at it. You, as sports decision-makers, are not only the custodians of your game, but, first and foremost, you are the custodians of the welfare of those who play your game.

You are incredibly creative and adaptable, because as former players and coaches—and most of you are—you've had to be. That's your life. It's your pride. You are great problem-solvers. Brain injuries in sports are another problem to solve. For our sports, we need a new game plan from you. That's why we're here.

The problem is no longer one of awareness; there's plenty of awareness. The problem is sports decision-makers who don't take this awareness and act. Brain injuries in sports, or any part of our lives, will never disappear, but they can be reduced significantly. There are answers. The answers are doable.

As parliamentarians, when you hear from the scientists, the equipment people, the sports decision-makers, think back to the athletes. Think back to what they've told you about their lives and how they have changed. What happened to them is not right. It's not fair, but it's also not necessary. Lots of things aren't fair or right and we can't do anything about them. This, we can. This is not necessary, and when something is not necessary and we don't do what needs to be done, that is inexcusable.

For you as parliamentarians, this is a great opportunity to listen hard, to question hard, to think hard, and then to act hard and to ensure that others act hard.

I wish you and all Canadians a great, challenging and life-affecting journey.

Thank you.

[The Chair]

Mr. Dryden, thank you for that very compelling statement. I know the members have many questions.

Before the members get started, I just want them to be mindful that each member will have seven minutes in the first round of questioning.

We're going to kick things off with Mr. Fisher for the Liberals.

[Darren Fisher, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Lib.]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dryden—Ken—thank you so much. Those were incredible opening remarks.

I'll ask a bit about your hockey history. Of course, in Nova Scotia, we're still talking about Windsor, Nova Scotia versus Dartmouth, so we don't really get into the whole McGill thing.

[Ken Dryden]

I think even Amherst is up.

[Darren Fisher]

As long as it stays in Nova Scotia....

[Ken Dryden]

Yes.

[Darren Fisher]

The thicker the pads, the higher the boards, the rougher hockey gets and the more injuries players get. Players seem to feel almost a sense of false security with their gear and take more liberties with their own safety. It's not just hockey. We've talked about this before. Many sports seem to be affected by this false sense of security.

However, stepping away from the concerns about the inadequacies of the gear, how do we change sports culture to ensure that all players are a little more mindful about the dangers of concussions? How do we keep the game intense but safe?

[Ken Dryden]

That's a very good question. The answer starts with the last of what you said. Players are players and they get absorbed in what they're doing. They react intensely to what is going on, and they're not very likely to stop being that way when they play.

Players will play injured. They love to play injured. That's part of the challenge of playing. It's like another opponent, and you're trying to defeat that opponent as well. You can deliver some of these messages, but you have that as a problem.

You also have as a problem the fact that a lot of the players are between the ages of, say, 13 and 30 or 35, and when you're between 13 and 35, there are no consequences. You think that whatever injury you have is nothing and you won't feel it when you're 40 or 50, or afterwards, so it's hard to get that message across.

That's why it's always critical for another set of eyes to exist, for a coach's eyes to be there, a trainer's eyes, a doctor's eyes, a parent's eyes, to be able to watch that and say, “This doesn't look right”; to say that when that player comes off the ice, they don't look right; to say, “I've seen them when they look right, and I look at their face now and they don't look right”; and to have the confidence to say, “Joey—or Janey—tonight your night is done; you did great out there, but tonight the game is over for you, and let's see what the next couple of days are like.”

To a huge extent, it's the non-players in those roles or in the administrative roles. Again, the sports administrators are there and they're the ones who set the rules; they're the ones who set the regulations.

It's easy to say, at every age, “Well, this is a player and they want to play,” and let them have that free choice to play and all the rest of it. That's terrific, up to a certain point at which there might well be a problem; there might well be health consequences in it.

That's why it's so important that those sports decision-makers apply the right grid, because there are never going to be doctors around at every game and not everybody is going to be taking a course, and not every player is going to have the courage to say, “No, I don't think I should continue to play.”

[Darren Fisher]

Do I still have time?

[The Chair]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Darren Fisher]

We often talk about the stigma around mental health, but there seems to be a bit of stigma around concussions as well. You already said, and we know full well, that players will play injured. Players will play when they suspect they have a concussion, and players will very likely play when they know they have a concussion.

Sticking with that whole change in the culture, how do we remove that stigma to make sure athletes know that they need to get off the ice or get off the field or get off the court and get the help they need? How do we get past that point where people almost see it as a badge of honour to play injured?

[Ken Dryden]

Part of it.... Again it's what I was trying to say in my opening remarks about the importance of the athletes telling their story. How many coaches have really spent time asking one of their concussion-injured players, what's it like? How do you feel? What was it like a day later, a week later, the rest of it? What about in school?

How many have done that? How many general managers? How many owners of teams? How many administrators of leagues? How many of them have had that conversation?

There was a very telling moment in a deposition a couple of years ago when Gary Bettman was asked the question—these words are not exactly right, but something like that—“Have you ever talked to one of these injured players or their families?” The answer was “I don't believe so.”

It's why I made the comment in my remarks that we all love to say, “These are tough decisions and I'm the person to make the tough decisions.” Do you know how to make a tough decision an easy one? If you don't know the consequences, then it's an easy decision. What should be a tough decision would be a tough decision if you knew about the tough consequences, but if you decide to avoid what the consequences are then it's dead simple. It's easy to make any kind of decision that way.

[The Chair]

We're up with the Conservatives and Mr. Kitchen.

[Robert Kitchen, Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ken, thank you very much for coming. It's great to have you here and to hear your presentation. Officially, I guess I now have on record that I am a Toronto Maple Leafs fan, but with that said, I am a fan of the greatest goalie in Canadian history, and that is Ken Dryden. My wife might argue differently, as she is a Patrick Roy fan, and my son might argue even more so that he is a Carey Price fan, but the one thing in common is that all three of them played for the Montreal Canadiens, one of the greatest hockey machines out there.

Thank you for being here.

[Ken Dryden]

Thank you.

[Robert Kitchen]

I'm really glad that in your presentation you keyed on something that is of key importance to me, and that's talking about sports decision-makers. Sporting bodies are out there for all sports. Some may be regulated, some may not be, but the reality is that they are the ones who are making those decisions. They are the ones whom we need to impress upon to understand the very things you've been talking about, because they are the ones who will make the changes to the rules, as we've seen in various sports over time.

Today we see athletes coming out who are young children and who are sport-specific. They're younger, and they're stronger. We didn't see that many years ago, so those are big challenges. The sport needs to change with that, as you've indicated it does.

I'm wondering if you can comment a bit more on that. I was a regulator in the chiropractic profession. I understand the issue. Do you see that as an avenue for these sporting organizations, making sure that they regulate themselves?

[Ken Dryden]

Yes. All of that is really quite crucial. We've talked about that a bit. Eventually, you'll have the chance to talk to the people who are the heads of Rugby Canada, Football Canada and Hockey Canada, whomever you want to talk with about this and about the game they're involved in. The chances are that they played their game when they were younger. It's a game they love, a game that is in great competition with other sports for attention, so they want to make their game the best and the most attractive it can possibly be.

I think what becomes critical in what you're doing here is that in coming to know even better the story of the athlete and the story of science, you then have that wonderful basis to talk to those sports administrators and to say to them, “This is happening and this isn't great stuff. These are your games, so how would you address that and what plan would you have?”

One thing I've often suggested to people is this. In any sport, who are the most respected people in that sport? Take the most respected former coaches, former players, players, whoever they happen to be, the most respected people, and put them around a table and give them this problem to resolve and say, “Look, this is the way things are. This game that we love and will continue to love and have every reason to love is also bringing with it some of these injuries that are really not good, so what can we do?”

As I said a little earlier, for any coach or player there are 10 different ways of doing the same thing, because that's what happens in a game. You have a game plan, and the other team has its counter-plan. You can't do that, or you fall behind, or you get ahead; it's the third period, or it's the first period. You have to change. You have to adapt. You present this problem to them, but you present it to them on the basis of saying to park the idea of impossibility at the door.

Really, what is impossible is that you don't address this, because if you don't, these athletes are going to continue to be injured. We are going to know more through science, and it's almost certain that what we end up knowing more about through science is not going to be something that is going to make us go, “Oh, I guess it was no big deal.” Usually, the more we learn in that way and the more we find out, it's “Hmm, this is actually a bigger problem than we thought.”

Focus on it. I think you'll come up with some unbelievably interesting answers, because these are interesting people and they're creative people, but they have to get over this “The game is the game and you can't change the game” and so on. That's why I spend as much time as I do going into a sport that I know pretty well—hockey—and the changes in its history and all those impossibilities, but the same can happen in rugby and in soccer. It can be the same in any of these games where there may be a problem.

Yes, on those sports administrators, it will be a terrific conversation that you have with them.

[Robert Kitchen]

Thank you.

Respect for the game is obviously an important thing. As a rugby player I had that. It was ingrained in my head from the moment I learned it at eight years of age. We have different sports around the country. In particular, we're dealing with other aspects besides big centres; we're talking about rural Canada. We have a lot of great hockey players coming from rural Saskatchewan and other rural parts of Canada. It's not only about hockey, but about other sports as well, such as soccer, squash, etc.

The reality is that there are challenges for rural Canada in making certain that we have people there who are able to deal with those injuries as they come in. In some communities, we see people in different professions who meet the requirements and can actually work in this area. These are areas that I think we need to identify to make sure we have that, because in some places there may not be a doctor.

[The Chair]

We're going to have to hold that question until the next round, Mr. Kitchen. That's seven minutes.

We're going to move to the NDP and Ms. Hardcastle.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dryden, for sharing your thoughts with us today to kick this off.

Like my colleagues who have spoken before me, I want to reiterate how important it is to have someone like you, who is a sports icon, to come and help us establish some benchmarks of where we can be going.

As you know, books that are written and are popular culture.... When we have people who are championing a cause and breaking the silence, breaking a barrier, breaking a pattern of thinking, people who are held in high regard in our society, it is effective. Besides your book, because people are mentioning goalies, I want to mention that Curtis Joseph also has a very poignant book right now that is making us have larger discussions about other meaningful aspects. Why are people listening? It's because of the great weight of his own persona.

Having said that, we have a social hierarchy, and we have within that a need to uplift sport and to “protect this game”. That's how we get through to these sports decision-makers. They evolve over time as well. We have young people in this room today who are going to be sports decision-makers some day. How do we establish the ground work? When we're talking about decision-makers and people in politics, like us, you mentioned that we can't get everything right, but there are things we can do, and the big ones we can't get wrong.

I know I used a lot of my time in my preamble. Just take the rest of my time and expand on that for us a bit. Maybe you've already shared some of that in your book, but you can just paraphrase for us. I think it's really important that we get into that.

[Ken Dryden]

In terms of the last part of what you were talking about, the big things we can't get wrong, it has to do with hits to the head in many different aspects of our lives. At one time, in World War I, we thought that somebody who came home and couldn't function had shell shock, and then it moved on to a different phrase later. The assumption was that when those people came back and couldn't function, it was all their fault. They can't cope with the world and get on with life. What's the problem? They're drinking; they're an embarrassment to society and all the rest of it.

We never really quite thought that maybe there was physical damage that was done. They looked fine; they weren't injured. They didn't lose their arms or their legs. There were so many other people who seemed to have horrible injuries, and they didn't seem to, so they were just weak, obviously, and couldn't deal with it.

If we just imagine for a second, and we know it well, continuous blows to the knee. We know what our knees feel like after a while, or our shoulders. Why would a head be different in that way? Why have we gotten it the way we have for so long? That is the big one to avoid getting wrong in this particular instance and in terms of sports.

One last quick thing on what you were saying about Curtis Joseph and others who have a voice. The thing is that we have a voice because we're given a voice, because we've done something and a publisher thinks others may be interested in what we're saying. What we say isn't anything more interesting than what any other athletes might say who have experienced something. It's just that nobody's asked to hear their voice.

You have the wonderful opportunity here to listen to athletes who have just as powerful a voice if they are given a chance to express themselves. Then, I think, they will have as much power and as much influence, if not more, than those you cite.

[Cheryl Hardcastle]

You're absolutely right. I myself have submitted for the witness list young athletes and their parents—as I know all of my colleagues here have—so that we can actually have them articulate their experiences. I'm sure you know that it's not really the first time we've had these discussions. As you said, it's no real surprise what we're doing here, and what we're talking about today. Are you concerned at all, or are you anticipating that we're going to hear very different stories?

[Ken Dryden]

Whatever stories you hear are great. They're the stories. They're the reason you're here.

I've done a few community symposiums in Peterborough, Guelph, Calgary, Regina—lots of different places. I started with the local athletes. There are always local athletes. I even did one in Dryden, Ontario. It has 6,000 people. There are still local athletes, still local doctors, still local administrators—no matter how big the place happens to be. It's about listening to them and what they say. It's fascinating. All of us know the broad story of it, but when you get into the details, that's when it starts to hit home.

So whatever the athletes you invite say, whatever their stories are, they're terrific. They're part of the collective story.

[The Chair]

You have about 30 seconds.