On Tuesday, Hockey Canada's interim chair Andrea Skinner appeared before Members of the Parliament in Ottawa to testify about alleged sexual assaults in the sport and how money was paid out in lawsuits. Hockey Canada has been under fire since May when it was revealed the organization settled a lawsuit with a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by eight players from the 2018 junior men's hockey team at a June gala event in London, Ontario, that year.
While testifying, Skinner stated that Hockey Canada won’t be making any managerial changes, despite calls across party lines to do so, and said Hockey Canada CEO Scott Smith “deserves an A” for his handling of the crisis. She also claimed that media coverage of the controversy has aimed to turn public opinion against the organization and that “substantial misinformation” and “cynical attacks” from politicians and other sources have hampered Hockey Canada’s ability to navigate the crisis.
Simon Darnell, an associate professor at the University of Toronto Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education and director of the Faculty’s Centre for Sport Policy Studies, shared his thoughts about the case. Darnell’s research interests include sociology of sport and physical activity, and sport and public policy.
What do you make of Skinner’s comments?
While clearly designed to protect and defend the organization, Ms. Skinner’s comments do a disservice to the sport of hockey in Canada, and to the players of all ages and abilities who participate in the game across the country. Ms. Skinner’s comments obfuscate the real problems. At issue here is not the managerial acumen of the leadership of Hockey Canada. Nor is it the role of the media or politicians in criticizing the sport and its governing body. Rather, the point is Hockey Canada’ near indifference, and even acceptance, of its elite male hockey players sexually assaulting young women. That Hockey Canada has dedicated money to covering up these acts or paying off victims, and resisted calls to expose this culture and its place within the organization and the sport, is a failure to all Canadians who have any investment in hockey.
What do such attitudes tell you about the prospect for real change in Hockey Canada – and sport in general?
At least three specific aspects of sport policy reform are at stake here.
One is that the culture of elite male sport still often renders girls and young women abject, and places them in positions to be, at best, second-class athletes and at worst, objects for male sexual gratification.
Two is that Hockey Canada is ignoring, or even working against, the groundswell of calls to make sport – particularly at elite levels – safer and more inclusive for all athletes. A culture of sport that fails to call out sexual assault is one that denies the importance of safety, health and wellbeing, for women and for men.
And three is that implicit in Ms. Skinner’s remarks is that the undeniable popularity, and even national sanctity, of hockey in Canada, somehow means that the organization deserves an extra-long leash when handling this crisis. In fact, just the opposite is true.
How can Hockey Canada leverage its national status to shift cultures in Canadian sport?
Given the huge cultural importance of hockey in this country, Hockey Canada has a profound responsibility to lead the way in challenging cultures that lead to sexual assault and abuse in sport. If this kind of leadership does not come from this sport, then which one will it come from? And if it is not this particularly powerful organization that leads the way, then why should other sport organizations take this issue seriously?
Hockey Canada’s current actions are failing the sport, they are failing the people who play, coach and organize it, and they are failing Canadians. This isn’t an overly cynical viewpoint. It is a call from those of us who care deeply about hockey for its leaders to do better.