There were several moments during testimony this week at the parliamentary standing committee looking into the practices of Hockey Canada that surely convinced many of the need to blow the organization up and start over.
One of my favourites was when Conservative MP Rachael Thomas asked interim board chair Andrea Skinner for the top three qualities that make embattled Hockey Canada CEO Scott Smith the best person to lead the organization.
Ms. Skinner, who has been Mr. Smith’s staunchest supporter in the face of multiple demands he resign over disclosures that have cast the organization in a horrible light, looked increasingly uncomfortable as she sought an answer, her face reddening as the seconds passed by.
Ms. Thomas took sympathy on her, restating the question more simply. “What makes him the best leader?” she asked.
Ms. Skinner said something about Mr. Smith’s ability to put a top team in place. (Cough, cough). Another committee member asked what letter grade she would give him for his performance as CEO. After saying she was a hard marker, Ms. Skinner said: “An A.”
Remarkable.
The Canadian Heritage standing committee began the hearings after it was revealed in June that Hockey Canada had settled a $3.55-million lawsuit (for an undisclosed sum) stemming from an alleged sexual assault four years ago by several members of the 2018 World Junior hockey team at an event in London, Ont. Testimony, so far, has mostly served to reveal what an insular, out-of-touch organization Hockey Canada truly is.
The Globe and Mail has been responsible for some of the most damaging disclosures about Hockey Canada’s practices. Not only did Hockey Canada, years ago, direct money from grassroots hockey registration fees to something called the National Equity Fund, which it used to settle sexual assault claims, it quietly created a second such pool of money under the anodyne title: Participants Legacy Trust Fund.
It was effectively another slush fund that could be used to pay off people who had been sexually assaulted by hockey players. The liabilities for such behaviour would be covered by Hockey Canada.
Nice little hockey organization you have there.
At the committee hearing, Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner zeroed in on one of the most egregious aspects of this story: by paying a claim for the 2018 alleged group sexual assault, Hockey Canada was sending the message it had the players’ backs, no matter their conduct.
Again, Ms. Skinner dug in and said the players involved in the London assault would be held accountable if a new investigation into the matter determines they took part in such an assault. What that means was left unsaid.
But the point is, this new investigation is only happening because of public pressure. Because sponsors were incensed about being associated with an organization that seemingly viewed sexual assault so matter-of-factly.
Ms. Skinner continued to back Mr. Smith and his executive team, saying they are doing a great job and have been victims of a misinformation campaign and cynical attacks from an array of people and sources. She said the way the executive handled the 2018 assault allegation was appropriate. She warned that the tumult caused by high-profile firings could have unintended consequences.
“Will the lights stay on in the rink? I don’t know.”
Yes, she really said that.
Well, some hockey associations have finally heard enough. Hockey Quebec announced Wednesday that it was cutting ties with Hockey Canada because it no longer has confidence the organization can “change the culture of hockey with the structure in place.”
The provincial federation will suspend the transfer of registration fees ($3 per child) normally paid to minor hockey’s governing body.
Then, the Ontario Hockey Federation followed suit.
Tim Hortons, one of Hockey Canada’s most prominent and important sponsors, announced Wednesday it is withdrawing support for the men’s hockey program, including the World Juniors, for the 2022-23 season. Scotiabank quickly followed, and on Thursday, Telus pulled its sponsorship for the season while Canadian Tire announced it was permanently ending its relationship with the organization.
Most organizations with any sense of moral duty would have reacted to the demands of the public by now. The CEO would have been sacked, along with his top officials, and likely the entire board as well. Clearly, Ms. Skinner, who represents the Hockey Canada board, is not admitting any failings in the way the organization is dealing with the mess at its feet.
On the contrary, she is giving the CEO an “A” for such an exceptional job.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comments on Thursday seemed to reflect the country’s general impression of Hockey Canada’s performance this week: “There needs to be wholesale change,” he told reporters. “If we have to create an organization, get rid of Hockey Canada and create an organization called Canada Hockey instead, people will look at doing that.”
But I doubt it’s going to come to that. Change is almost certainly coming.
Gary Mason