Status of Women Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Were any other complaints referred to any other...? Were there none?

[Ian Moss]

With respect to Mr. Bard, that is, to date, the only complaint I have on file.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Would you say that the witness who came forward to make the complaint was able to articulate what her situation was so you could pursue it further?

[Ian Moss]

I'm sorry, but I would just like to clarify. With respect to the formal complaint that came forward, which ultimately resulted in the termination of his contract, yes, that individual did not come to me but it came through a board member. The decision was made collectively to terminate him based on that.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

He is not allowed to coach anymore. Is that correct?

[Ian Moss]

No, that's not correct. It was a contractual matter that was dealt with. This was not an issue of abuse and maltreatment. This was a code-of-conduct issue.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

I don't understand that.

We have a complaint against this individual, and an investigation is not necessary because it was a code-of-conduct issue. Can you explain what that means? I'm totally confused.

[Ian Moss]

That's fair. I totally understand the confusion.

Obviously our system is based on a whole series of policies and procedures. We have to follow those policies and procedures based on that requirement.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Human factors don't—

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Anna, I'm sorry, but your minutes are up. I'll get back to you.

I'm going to pass it over now to Jenna Sudds for six minutes.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to all of the witnesses for being here with us today.

I'd like to start my questions with Ms. Pelletier. We heard, in your testimony, about your ambition for OSIC, obviously, and the mandate that you have but also the sentiment that much more is needed in order to ensure that we are protecting athletes.

I'm wondering if you can speak to the limits of the powers you have currently and perhaps even what additional powers you feel you could use in order to fulfill your vision and mandate.

[Sarah-Ève Pelletier]

I will start with limitations.

The first thing I'd like to acknowledge is that today we have the ability to receive and look into matters that relate to maltreatment and discrimination. Whenever we have the ability to look into those matters, we do. When we don't, we try to provide the best help and empower those who come forward with the means and the tools to have options, and to know what types of resources they can access.

We realize, as of today, that some cases that come to us are inadmissible. We then look at where we can redirect those inadmissible cases. In less than one-third of those cases, we are able to find an alternative mechanism.

What I'm referring to here are what I would call the current gaps in our system at the different levels of participation. Our mandate, within OSIC, is primarily at the national level, but we know that coaches, athletes and participants experience sport at all levels of the system—at the local and provincial level. That is one limitation. I would call it a systemic limitation to our existing mandate, but it is something that could be solved collectively if all levels of the system were joined together.

In terms of our powers, we have powers that are effective. We can impose sanctions against individuals who have committed violations. We have the power to compel participation by those who have signed on to our processes. We also have the mandate to maintain a registry of sanctions.

Those are three things we feel are very necessary in order to have an effective mechanism that will truly serve its purpose, but the way our jurisdiction and mandate are currently construed, there are some limitations to those three aspects that I mentioned.

I would be happy to provide you with further details on each of those, if that's of interest.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

That's excellent.

I want to make sure I understood. One of the things I heard you say was that one of your limitations was around the admissibility of cases if they are not at the national level. Am I understanding that correctly?

If someone comes forward with an instance that is under the jurisdiction of a province or a territory at the local level, you currently don't have the tools to address that situation. Is that correct?

[Sarah-Ève Pelletier]

The tools to address that situation are inconsistent for the time being, because they would rely on whether there was an existing solution in place at those provincial or territorial levels. What I want to speak to are the gaps and inconsistencies in how that is currently happening at the provincial, territorial or simply local club levels.

In some instances, there is a system in place, such as in the province of Quebec. If, based on the circumstances, there is an ability to inform the person who comes forward of that option, and to help alleviate, as much as possible, the burden of having to navigate yet another system, that is something we'll do.

The weaknesses, or the gaps that I'm flagging, are that those systems are not currently in place everywhere. There are instances in which individuals come to us to address their matter, and we're not able to address their matter. Essentially, it could be that there is no alternative forum where we can provide that option to them.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

If I'm understanding you correctly, and please clarify.... You used Quebec as an example. Quebec would have an office similar to OSIC in place to address issues at the provincial level, whereas currently other provinces and territories in Canada do not. Is that correct?

[Sarah-Ève Pelletier]

Yes.

In terms of the inconsistencies we face, Quebec may have a set of rules, and may have a system to address the breach of conduct for those rules, both in terms of having harmonized rules that apply to all participants, and having an effective system to respond to potential issues. Those are gaps that we currently see.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata—Carleton, ON]

Is there a mechanism, or a will, for provinces or territories to sign on, or to participate, with OSIC, as other national organizations have?

[Sarah-Ève Pelletier]

The services of the OSIC are also available to the provinces and territories. They may join if that corresponds to their needs. Of course, our office can offer those services to the designated provinces and territories, or we can also work in collaboration with an alternative mechanism if that is the preferred option.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thank you so much.

I'm now going to turn the floor over to Andréanne Larouche.

You have six minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here and taking part in this important study.

I get the impression that, the more we look into this, the more troubling facts we uncover.

I have questions for all of the witnesses, but I will start with Ms. Pelletier.

In your opening remarks, you stated that the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner should be inclusive and accessible. Unfortunately, it is clear that this is not the case at the moment.

Commissioner, with respect, I find the government's reaction to this independent inquiry, which has been requested by a number of people, to be strange. It is also strange not to give the athletes more say. Based on what we see in the media, it looks like this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner estimates that 66% of the complaints, or two-thirds, have been deemed inadmissible.

There is widespread public support for an independent public inquiry. In addition, a number of researchers, including professor Gretchen Kerr, confirmed that this has been a topic of research for decades now.

I commend the leadership of Scholars Against Abuse in Canadian Sport, which compiled these studies. This past summer, the researchers' studies were mentioned during the study conducted by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. All of the experts and academic institutions can't be wrong. I hope the call for an independent public inquiry to shed light on this abuse and maltreatment will be heard. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sports is also calling for an independent inquiry.

I will get straight to the point: this independent inquiry will be invaluable, Ms. Pelletier, because things are not well in Canadian sport in general right now.

[Sarah-Ève Pelletier]

Your remarks and all the points you raised are very important and bring to light the fact that there is indeed a great deal of work to do. We are at a watershed moment in sport.

Since its creation eight months ago, the office has been working hard to move forward and be there for people. As I said earlier, when people come to the office, our primary goal is to support them, give them information and help them, even if it is outside the office’s mandate. Obviously, we all want the system to be flawless. That way, anyone with a concern or problem would have somewhere to go.

I assure you that our primary focus, whether it falls within our mandate or not, is to support people by providing them with resources, from our program or elsewhere.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You went over all the obstacles your office faces when responding to victims’ requests.

In October 2022, when coming out of a caucus meeting, the Minister of Sport told the media that the office had been mandated to conduct an independent investigation. There has been no reaction from Sport Canada, even though it has now been three months.

Is progress being made in the investigation? Could you tell the committee about the results of your work? What is the scope of your mandate? Which witnesses have you heard from?

Will you be consulting the public and responding to the minister’s call made back in October?

[Sarah-Ève Pelletier]

You spoke about the limitations of our powers. I can tell you that, in a few months of operations, we have identified instances to make our process even more effective.

I just want to clarify that we have very effective powers that allow us to investigate cases, study them and impose sanctions on individuals who allegedly committed violations. These are powers we have and that we exercise. So far, it has worked.

Is the system perfect as it is now? No, because it is still being developed. There is much work yet to be done and we will have the opportunity to improve it.

I think what you are referring to in terms of investigation powers concerns sport environment assessments. It’s the second component that empowers the office not only to investigate actions by individuals, but also to conduct assessments of various sport environments. We know there are systemic problems in some sport environments. It is therefore not just a question of the actions of a few individuals. Once an assessment has been completed, we issue recommendations. In addition, the office will also closely monitor the implementation of the recommendations in the environment…

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Pelletier, I have to interrupt you as my speaking time is up.

It seems that you do not have all the resources or the staff you need to respond effectively to all of the legal investigations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Karen Vecchio]

Thanks so much.

We will be sure to get back to Andréanne on her next round.

I'm now going to pass it over to Leah Gazan for six minutes.

You have the floor, Leah.