Calling for a national sport inquiry

As the country continues to grapple with the fallout from the many allegations of harassment, abuse and bullying within its sports community, calls for a national inquiry into the problem are growing louder. As high-profile athletes report stories of abuse, advocates say the government needs to look deeper into the systemic issues that have allowed these problems to persist for so long.

So far, the federal government has resisted launching an investigation. According to Sport Minister Pascale St-Onge, that’s because most cases of abuse and mistreatment are “outside the federal sphere”. Most sports in Canada are regulated at the provincial level.

“A national investigation would not address the issue in local or municipal sports or provincial sports programs,” St-Onge said in an interview with CBC in late January, but did not provide a statement CBA National if asked. “That is why I think it is important to investigate any situation of abuse or ill-treatment. So what we need now is not just one investigation, but many investigations in each sport where these situations arise, so that we can address them directly and specifically. I understand that calls for justice and that’s what we’re trying to provide.”

St-Onge has also pointed out that her powers as federal minister only concern funding for national sports organisations.

However, Daphne Gilbert, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, argues that federal control over state-funded national sports organizations is a key factor in how provincial federations operate.

“I’ve been involved with the universal code of practice to prevent and combat abuse in sport for the past three or four years and it’s mandatory for every state funded sporting organization but that has now leaked out to many of the provincial federations that are adopting the UCCMS as well.” , Gilbert says, “The funding mechanism is just one aspect of what is looked for in an investigation.”

There are several ways the federal government can structure a national investigation. There are also precedents. From environmental disasters to health crises, joint federal and state investigations have been set up. In 1993, the Krever Inquiry investigated the Tadelblut scandal. In 1982, Newfoundland and Labrador established a joint commission with Ottawa to investigate the sinking of the Ocean Ranger offshore oil rig.

The provinces and territories also cooperated with the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

In addition, provincial investigative legislation typically allows governments to investigate matters that overlap with federal investigations or to investigate matters that are provincial-specific.

Another possibility is for the federal government to hire a former judge to investigate specific issues and report back with recommendations.

Ultimately, the results survivors are looking for should help inform the shape of the investigation process, says Kyle Lambert, a partner at McMillan LLP in Ottawa, who has experience with federal and provincial investigations in Ontario.

“If the goal is for the commission to make recommendations that cover all organized sport in Canada, then you need to advocate for that at the provincial level,” Lambert says. “As with the MMIW, logically you would have a body that would be supported by the legislation of each jurisdiction.”

Alternatively, a reduction by appointing a magistrate to write would serve to establish criteria for federal funding, Lambert adds.

“The example that comes to mind is the requirement for organizations to have an anti-harassment or violence prevention policy that does very specific things,” he says. “Federal government harassment policies and investment obligations for state-regulated employers are far more intense than any province.”

A public inquiry would not be required for a recommendation that organizations implement such policies as a condition of receiving federal funding.

“It really depends on how big you want to get,” says Lambert.

Amelia Cline, an attorney at Vancouver-based Sorensen Smith LLP and co-founder of Gymnasts for Change, is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit alleging abuse in sports. She says survivors have three main goals.

The first is a “top-to-bottom analysis” of the dysfunction that permeates stakeholders from Sport Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee to national sports organizations “down to the grassroots”.

Second, an accountability framework is needed to address the issue of triggers for abuse and ill-treatment in sport. “We have seen no progress in getting administrators involved in covering up the abuse out of the sports system,” she says.

The third goal is the development of new governance structures and legal frameworks. “There are so many loopholes in our system; there are so many jurisdictional issues that make it rife for systemic abuse,” says Cline. “How do we reform the system to close these gaps and make it workable and safe, especially for children but all athletes?”

These are big, broad questions, to be sure. But that’s the point, says Cline — that the investigation is flexible enough to explore all avenues. The mandate must not be too narrow.

Cline cites the precedent of the 1990 Dubin Inquiry, which looked at doping in sport and primarily took an equity and public health approach rather than looking at sport as a whole.

“If you look at it from the perspective that this is actually a human rights crisis happening in the context of sport, you can sidestep some of these jurisdictional battles,” Cline says.

Children are the ones who suffer the most from abuse, Gilbert reflects. “It’s wrong to say that it’s the sport itself that’s abusive — it’s child abuse that happens within sport,” he says. “What recommendations should be implemented, e.g. such as not allowing children to live away from home until a certain age, or not allowing people to travel unsupervised, or oversight of exercise practices, which appear to be at the root of most of the abuse.”

A human rights approach would focus on child abuse rather than education. “The human rights lens really needs to bring the focus to the abuse and how it was covered up,” says Gilbert. “That’s one of the things that the investigation could boil down to – how this abuse was covered up and how we prevent it in the future.”

Regardless of the method chosen to investigate abuse in sport, the key is having someone “far outside the sport system” lead the investigation, Cline says.

It also makes sense to hold public hearings so survivors can see the impact of telling their stories.

“The general public needs to know what this crisis actually looks like,” says Cline. “I don’t know if people really understand what we mean when we say there is abuse in sport until they hear it from a survivor.”

Gilbert concedes that the federal government is understandably nervous about launching an investigation without firm boundaries that could “explode into something unmanageable” involving “thousands of survivors.”

The task must be carefully worked out. The government could consider investigating specific issues – transparency, financial accountability, training practices and coaching selection.

“Part of the power of an investigation is that you can subpoena people and documents so you can compel Hockey Canada or Gymnastics Canada organizers to show up and testify, which is extremely important to the athletes, and get answers.” Gilbert says. There are enough experts the government can rely on to ensure the investigation is a restricted process, he adds.

The federal government and St-Onge are urging sports organizations across the country to register with the Office of the Sports Integrity Commissioner and require that they register if they wish to receive federal funding. But not everyone believes that OSIC can do the work that a request would do.

“The general idea of ​​OSIC is really helpful,” says Cline. “An independent grievance mechanism is needed to get it out of the sports system and to prevent provincial and federal authorities from investigating themselves, which is clearly not working. But our main concern is that OSIC is not sufficiently independent from the sports system.” Having a Gymnastics Canada board member sit on OSIC’s board of directors creates a conflict of interest.

“It’s all well and good that the sports minister is trying to get provincial buy-in for OSIC, but OSIC itself needs some work too.”

In addition, OSIC investigators are not immune, like court officials, from being sued for defamation or defamation by those they investigate or discipline. They also have no subpoena powers and cannot compel national sports organizations to cooperate, even if they are signatories.

“If you look at the options, the best option is an inquest,” says Gilbert.