CANADIAN LACROSSE; A HISTORY AND A CULTURE OF MISTRUST

 By Pierre Filion pierrefilion@bell.net

I have attended 43 CLA (Lacrosse Canada) annual general meetings between 1973 and 2017; I have also attended every semi-annual meeting in that period along with numerous Board meetings, Executive committee meetings and sector meetings. I was there, I saw what I saw and heard what I heard. In no way, however, am I suggesting that I have a full perspective of ‘’the complete history’’ of Lacrosse Canada but 43 years of active presence might be something to take into account!

A HISTORY OF MISTRUST

Allow me to shed some light on what I have seen as a constant and repetitive history of mistrust between the national and provincial associations. I’ll just share some factual examples to illustrate my point. Some elements are very significant; some are shocking; others less, but they all point in the same direction; lack of trust!

• My first CLA meeting was in 1973 in Vancouver; Jim Bishop and Morley Kells were in BC at that time to meet with BCLA SR A players who could be drafted to play in the original six NLL team in May 1974 (during the box lacrosse season). At the 1973 annual meeting BC and Ontario’s delegate were up in arms requesting that the CLA of whom they were very active paying members would feel obligated to protect their members and negotiate some form of compensations if ever it came to be that the 1974 NLL was a viable project. BC and Ontario were screaming ‘’rape’’ all over the place. The CLA president was Gordon Hammond who after a total assessment of the situation (supporting the upcoming NLL or his own members) came out with his very delicately formulated decision: ‘’Gentlemen, if this is going to be rape then let’s lean back and enjoy it’’. The CLA had simply decided not to support its members and left the SR A teams from Ontario and BC to wander around with SR B players, empty arenas, loss of revenues and a water down product for the 1974 season and the upcoming Mann Cup. The NLL lasted two years and folded in February 1976. That was my first taste of lack of trust at the National level.

• Later I got a taste of the lack of trust between BC and Ontario. The small provinces (all of us, in fact) were there to sit and listen to the big boys fight it out! Below the belt, pointed and loaded questions were presented with the obvious intent to embarrass the other province. The funny part was that when offered an answer the requester followed up with a smiling ‘’thank you’’ which to my ears sounded more like ‘’fuck you’’ than ‘’thank you’’. An endless tango of mistrust.

• The CLA in later years (around 1978) came up with the ‘’urgent necessity’’ to field a National Field team to compete in a newly created World Cup where Canada would play the US, Great Britain and Australia in a world premiere lacrosse cup of tea. The CLA had money and was ‘’taking’’ box players from their local teams during the playing season; it did the same in 1982 and 1986. The box lacrosse teams could not compete with the CLA’s resources (finances, visibility, equipment, reimbursement, per diem, etc) and again felt that the National Association was raping them with no form of compensation. Trust the CLA!

• At a later annual meeting the provinces were presenting projects to be looked at by the CLA and potentially being funded. One project was of particular interest and seemed to be supported by all the provinces. The CLA turned the project down and CLA VP Marshall Spence simply told the audience: ‘’If you guys tell us to jump into the lake do you really think that we will do that; we are business people here; we make decisions; and that’s the way it is’’. Dialogue with the provinces was not an option; respect for the members was not also an option. They could not be trusted to promote significant or relevant projects.

• I once sat at a meeting and my colleague on the right leaned towards me and said: ‘’You see this native guy at the end of the table; this guy does not have a brain his head yet he is here delaying everything and wasting our time’’. This is just an example of members coming together thinking that every one else had a hidden agenda and simply personal interests. And no brains!

• One day, again at an annual meeting, the BLCA came forward with a project to be looked at; my colleague on the left (from a mall province) was totally opposed to the project, not on its merit but because ‘’those BC guys lie through their teeth; they are so far out west that we don’t know what they are plotting’’. I tried to discuss with my colleague to insure him that BC was coming clean on this but was met with this surprising comment: ‘’Listen Pierre, my mind is made up don’t confuse me with facts’’. Mistrust based on impressions!

• Again, at an annual meeting, after the presentation of the financial statement by the treasurer, an articulate provincial delegate was asking relevant questions to the treasurer. The CLA president quickly stepped in and indicated that ‘’the members should not embarrass the treasurer’’ and that the question period was over”.

• At a Board of Directors meeting the provinces wanted to know what the budget was for an upcoming international field lacrosse competition. Provinces were afraid that international com- petitions could ruin the Association (what else is new!!!) and wanted to be informed. The VP in charge of the National Team told the members that ‘’there is a budget; it’s in my briefcase but it is not a concern of yours because you’re not paying for it and, remember, he who pays the piper calls the tune’’.

• In the early 2000s Québec was asking that technical material produced by the CLA should be available in French. There were costs and delays so a Québec delegate offered to translate , at no cost, some of the material. The proposal was met with a quick refusal from a western delegate indicating that ‘’Québec separatists could write in French that my mother was a horse and I would not be able to understand it’’. Québec withdrew its proposal to translate. (Now just for fun if ever you read in a CLA/LC technical material ‘’ta mère est un cheval’’ then you can be assured that someone is telling everyone that ‘’your mother is a horse”).

• Over the years the CLA was invited to establish it’s strategic plan every four years. Provincial Executive Directors who had, at home, worked on such provincial plans wanted to be involved at the national level. Big fight. At first some were invited to contribute but were quickly sidelined as being ‘’too provincial’’, ‘’carrying hidden agendas and not having a national vision or concern for the game’’!

• Twice the concept of trust (or mistrust) was on the agenda of CLA meetings. Big effort. Position papers were presented; lines of thoughts were put forward; explanations were suggested but every time everything remained theoretical and everyone was appreciative of the information circulated. But nothing dealt with lacrosse or with Lacrosse Canada. Everyone had a better understanding of the cancer within but no one suggested we address OUR issue with OUR cancer.

These are some very limited factual illustrations of the lack of trust between the CLA and the Provinces and also, between the provinces themselves. Surely readers who have been with the CLA and/or Lacrosse Canada will have their own horror stories and could enlighten all of us with their own examples and facts. Factual additions will only help appreciate the dimension of the problem of mistrust.

A CULTURE OF MISTRUST

Mistrusting people, nations, provinces or associations is not a ‘’natural’’ thing; it’s a cultural thing. It’s a learned behavior; learned early with codes, words, slogans, examples and facts; and never forgotten.

Some sociologists will suggest that culture ‘’is as people do’’; and lacrosse people seem to have the same behavior over and over again to the point where one might feel comfortable to suggest that Canadian Lacrosse is a culture of mistrust. Clearly and verifiably.

Are we not all people of opposition brought into the marginal world of competitive lacrosse where we play the same teams, in the same leagues, in the same arenas with the same officials and crowds over and over again? Year after year, season after season. And don’t we develop our strategies to defeat, beat up on, kick asses and humiliate? Our secrets to survive; our codes to communicate secretly along with our hatred for our opposition. We are people of conflict; our marginal game is a game of conflict.

We don’t often ‘’get along’’ with our opposition; we don’t fraternize and ‘’naturally’’ qualify fraternization as a sign of weakness or of an unclear mind. We have learned this at a young age and have never forgotten it; and if ever we have tried to ‘’walk away’”’ from the culture of mistrust we are burnt down and taken advantage of just enough for anyone of us to come back to ‘’the right way of being.’’

‘’They fight on the floor; they fight in the corridors; they fight in the parking lot and they fight in the board rooms’’. Everyone has a hidden agenda; hidden strategies; secretive plans both on the floor and in the board room. And this is magnified by the fact that ‘’we’’ are a marginal game; that we are marginal people celebrating our marginality’s usefulness rather than appreciating that it is part of our cancer and a cause of our problems. We know who not to trust; who not go in the corner with! We know there will be a set up to have us fall but we just don’t know when. And that is why we have elders and leaders who remind us that our culture of mistrust is our salvation and our ticket to survival.

AND NOW WHAT?

Well maybe the ball is in your court.

If you have time let us know what would be the best way to cure this lack of trust. What is required? What is essential; what is urgent? What will work? What will save Lacrosse Canada? Just drop us a line at pierrefilion@bell.net .

Our next article will address the options remaining and the urgent changes required as a first step…if we all care about the betterment of our game and of our associations.