Chapter 12: The need for new leadership of Canadian sport

This chapter addresses the need for a new leadership approach to Canadian sport that we identified in Chapter 5 where we describe the sport system. We begin by outlining the Commission’s findings on the fragmented sport system and the need for leadership of Canadian sport. Then, we provide an overview of the sport models in Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Norway. We follow with a reminder of the Commission’s preliminary recommendations related to leadership in sport and the creation of the Centralized Sport Entity.

Subsequently, we consider the feedback we received before and after the release of the Preliminary Report in four areas: governmental leadership in sport and physical activity in Canada; the state of intergovernmental collaboration; federal sport and physical activity policies; and the need for a centralized, coordinated, and united approach to sport and physical activity in Canada through the creation of a Centralized Sport Entity to redress the shortcomings of the current approach. This includes feedback received at the National Summit organized by the Commission.

We conclude this chapter with our final findings and Calls to Action.

Commission’s findings on the fragmented sport system and the need for leadership in Canadian sport

As we outlined in previous chapters, the Canadian sport system is complex and fragmented. The complicated jurisdictional issues combined with inconsistent accountability mechanisms, governance requirements, oversight, and a lack of information-sharing mechanisms among sport and physical activity organizations at all levels has led to confusion and gaps. This complexity is compounded by the array of individuals and organizations who play a role within the Canadian sport system and those trying to address the void in overarching leadership. Although these individuals and organizations are well intentioned and want to make meaningful contributions to sport in Canada, there remains no definitive or identifiable point of national leadership.

The federal government has failed to implement a united vision for sport at all levels in Canada. Many shared their concerns about the long-standing lack of direction and vision for sport.

Overall, the Canadian sport “system” has evolved over decades by responding to various crises, issues, and pressures in an ad hoc manner, rather than with long-term strategic vision and direction.

Decisions have been made reactively, in response to “crises of the moment.” This has led to a lack of clarity, cohesion, and strategic depth in Canada’s current sport policy framework. Despite the government’s significant investments, these shortcomings have resulted in inconsistent outcomes and unrealized benefits for Canadians.

We were advised that ministers are often motivated by short-term political or circumstantial objectives, rather than addressing more strategic longer-term goals. Recurring concerns were the changing approaches or visions that often emerged after a change in government or a cabinet shuffle. Over the past 15 years, there have been 10 changes in ministers and portfolios, and sport has not always had a dedicated minister.^{Footnote 1463} The lack of prioritization or attention to the sport portfolio was also consistently noted. This instability has resulted in a lack of clear direction and vision and caused delays and confusion when priorities are re-examined or re-established.

For example, the federal government released an initial announcement in May 2023 stating that National Sport Organizations would be required to fully comply with the Canadian Governance Code by April 1, 2025.^{Footnote 1464} A year and a half later in November 2024, a different minister made a subsequent announcement stating that only certain governance requirements, rather than the entire Code, would become mandatory conditions for funding. However, by then several National Sport Organizations had already dedicated resources and expended significant effort to ensure complete compliance with that Code in response to the first announcement.

The sport portfolio has typically remained an entry-level ministerial position because Sport Canada is a branch within the Department of Canadian Heritage that is responsible for sport — it does not have its own ministry. In some instances, a secretary of state or minister of state holds this portfolio, which diminishes its importance at the federal cabinet table since these positions do not always carry full authority or a strong presence within cabinet. For over 20 years, sport has been housed within the Department of Canadian Heritage, a department responsible for promoting Canadian identity and values and celebrating Canada’s history and heritage. Sport is therefore seen as a vehicle to foster and promote national pride. As a result, high-performance success often becomes the primary focus, rather than the growth and stewardship of a vibrant national sport system and an increase in sport participation in Canada.

We learned that the federal government’s sport and physical activity policies are not adequately implemented, and in some cases, they have not been implemented at all.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments endorse policies and initiatives, however, the implementation of these policies and initiatives is slow and, in some cases, they are never implemented. A frequently cited example demonstrating these challenges was the delayed implementation — or the lack of implementation in some jurisdictions — of the Red Deer Declaration — For the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport.

There were also evident shortcomings in the implementation of previous editions of the Canadian Sport Policy, particularly when it came to increasing participation in sport. While both the 2002 and 2012 versions aimed to increase participation in sport, neither succeeded, and levels of participation remain a challenge. There were also delays in the introduction of the most recent Canadian Sport Policy, which serves as a further example of complicated and prolonged processes in the Canadian sport system. The federal, provincial, and territorial ministers agreed to review the Canadian Sport Policy in February 2021. Although its release was initially anticipated for February 2023, the renewed policy was ultimately released in August 2025 — approximately three years after the previous Canadian Sport Policy 2012–2022 had expired. The Commission recognizes that time and effort are required with any collaborative policy involving both levels of government. However, it is also the Commission’s understanding that changes of federal ministers and governments have contributed to this delay.

The efficiency of the existing intergovernmental collaboration mechanisms was also questioned throughout the Commission’s engagement activities. Mechanisms and apparent willingness exist to promote coordination between federal, provincial, and territorial governments — including the Conferences of Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation, and the Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council. However, challenges affecting their effectiveness were noted. For example, meetings between ministers are infrequent and have limited accomplishments. Others noted that meetings involve high-level officials who may be disconnected from the realities of sport “on the ground.”

Overall, the lack of leadership and the absence of a national strategy, combined with a reactive approach to sport in Canada, has resulted in the proliferation of National Multisport Service Organizations in an uncoordinated manner. Each of these organizations operates with its own board of directors, chief executive officer, or executive director.

As Chapter 15 outlines, the core funding to National Sport Organizations has not increased since 2005. At the same time the number of National Sport Organizations has also grown. This has created an environment in which organizations, often with increased and mandated responsibilities, find themselves competing for support from an unchanging pool of funds. We also understand that changes in government result in delays for funding approval because ministers require briefings prior to making any such approvals.

Many organizations and individuals who engaged with the Commission also heavily criticized the current funding’s focus on performance and medals. They told us how the shift to a performance-focused system placed unhealthy pressure on athletes, coaches, and organizations. They also observed that this focus on performance shifted funding and organizational priorities toward achieving medals, rather than encouraging a broad, inclusive, and accessible culture of sport and physical activity across Canada.

Many individuals and organizations declared to the Commission that the time is right for a review of the sport system. They believe that while promoting high-performance sport is important, it needs to be balanced with increasing grassroots sport participation and physical activity as part of the development of a comprehensive new vision for sport in Canada.

Sport models in other countries

Participants often recommended that we draw inspiration from the structures responsible for sport in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Norway, recognizing the effectiveness of their models and strategic approaches to advancing sport. They told us that these countries understand the value and benefits of sport for society. As a result, before turning to what improved leadership and intergovernmental collaboration in the Canadian context might look like, we examine the models that these countries have adopted. We selected these countries as comparators because they were most frequently identified in our discussions as national models to consider. Some of them have similar government structures as Canada.

Each of these countries has designed their sport system using different models, with varying structures. Australia and Norway bring together the responsibility for high-performance sport and broader participation under one entity. However, unlike Australia, Norway’s sport governing body is the umbrella organization for all organized sport in the country. By contrast, the United Kingdom separates these responsibilities, with a nationwide approach to high-performance sport and a regional approach to broad participation. New Zealand’s approach reflects a mix of both models.

Australia

Australia is a federation with six states and two major territories. Powers are divided between the central federal government and regional governments in the states and territories, all of which have their own constitutions, parliaments, governments, and laws.^{Footnote 1465} Federal powers are defined in the Constitution. All undefined powers, or remedial powers, are an area of state and territory responsibility.

The federal government has exclusive power over defence, foreign policy, currency, copyright, and citizenship. It shares power with the states and territories over education, environment, health, taxation, and overseas trade. Finally, residual powers of primarily state and territory interests include public transport, utilities such as electricity and water supply, consumer affairs, and police, prison, and ambulance services. There are also over 500 local councils that can make local laws related to, for example, local roads, parking, and sewerage for their region or district.^{Footnote 1466}

Australia’s sport funding mechanisms are based on a collaborative framework involving national, state, and local governments, along with private sector contributions. This framework is designed to support both elite and community-level sports. The Australian Government’s Ministry of Sport is housed within the Department of Health’s Office for Sport which oversees sport development.^{Footnote 1467} The Ministry of Sport supervises the Australian Sports Commission which is responsible for mass sport participation. Its mandate is to “lead, support and provide opportunities for all communities to be involved in sport, while growing elite success and representation, inspiring future generations.”^{Footnote 1468}

Australia has two national strategies to achieve its sport mandate. One strategy, “Australia’s Sport Participation Strategy — Play Well”, is focused on mass sport participation.^{Footnote 1469} The other, “High Performance 2032+ Sport Strategy,” is focused on high-performance sport^{Footnote 1470}. Both fall under the umbrella of the Australian Sports Commission. In other words, in Australia, high performance and participation in sport are one authority’s responsibility. This central entity, funded by the Australian Government, is overseen by an arms-length board of directors. The reach, relevance, and vibrancy of the Australian approach can be seen by examining the two recent strategic documents we just described.

In line with its mandate, the Australian Sports Commission works with various stakeholders to create opportunities from the grassroots community level to high performance. These stakeholders include sport clubs, schools, recreation centres, sport institutes and academies, national sport organizations, and the Australian Olympic Committee. The commission works across the local, state, territorial, and national levels of sport.^{Footnote 1471}

The Australian Institute of Sport, which is an arm of the Australian Sports Commission, performs a variety of functions: developing a sport excellence program, establishing and maintaining training facilities, conducting research, providing sport medicine and sport science services, and addressing issues relating to facilities.^{Footnote 1472} This institute functions as a hub for sport science and research, with a specific focus on high performance, and serves the needs of national and international-level athletes and teams. State Institutes of Sport fulfill similar roles but address the needs of athletes within their respective state or territorial structures.^{Footnote 1473}

The Australian Sports Commission invests in high-performance and national sport participation programs, performance pathways, people development and well-being, and research and innovation. It also manages high-performance operations at various locations and offers support to thousands of athletes and dozens of Australian sports through guidance and collaboration.^{Footnote 1474}

As a Government Commonwealth Corporate Entity, it is a corporate body with a separate legal personality from the Commonwealth of Australia. It was created by legislation, the Australian Sports Commission Act, 1989.^{Footnote 1475} This Act prescribes the commission’s objectives, functions, and powers, and outlines the circumstances in which the minister may give directions to the commission.^{Footnote 1476}

The Australian Sports Commission is governed by a board of commissioners whose members are appointed by the Minister of Sport. The board determines the Australian Sports Commission’s overall direction and decides on resource allocation and on policy for delegated decisions. The board is accountable to the Minister for Sport.^{Footnote 1477} As a Government Commonwealth Corporate Entity, the Australian Sports Commission is funded by the Australian Government to support and invest in sport at all levels.^{Footnote 1478} It is also subject to the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013, which identifies a number of requirements to ensure the proper use and management of public funds,^{Footnote 1479} including preparing a corporate plan, producing a performance statement, and maintaining risk oversight and management systems.

Several features of the Australian sport system were described to the Commission. First was the division of specific roles within distinct statutory agencies (the Australian Sports Commission, Sport Integrity Australia, and the National Sports Tribunal^{Footnote 1480}), which provides clarity of responsibilities and institutional independence. Second, were the checks and balances in place, including board oversight, auditing by the Auditor General, and reports to the minister and Parliament, which provide more than one accountability pathway. These accountability mechanisms prevent the possibility of a single oversight body judging its own action.

In terms of challenges encountered by the Australian sport system, given their federated model, Australia like Canada encounters challenges in the consistent application of policies at all levels of a sport.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. The constitution is mainly uncodified.^{Footnote 1481} Historically, legislative, administrative, and executive power in the United Kingdom resided with the central government in Westminster. However, since the end of the twentieth century, a process of devolution has been transferring certain powers to the regional governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This transfer of power is spelled out in devolution legislation.^{Footnote 1482}

Devolution in the United Kingdom has occurred asymmetrically, meaning that certain regional parliaments have greater legislative and executive power than others.^{Footnote 1483} In general, certain powers are “reserved” for the United Kingdom Parliament, such as defence, foreign affairs, and matters that concern the United Kingdom as a whole.^{Footnote 1484}

Matters devolved to regional governments include health and social services, education, economic development, and agriculture.^{Footnote 1485} Local and city administrations have certain powers that allow them to manage local affairs more effectively. These powers differ by region, with responsibilities divided in various ways between local and regional governments throughout England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. These powers generally include community services, environmental matters, local transport, housing, and social services.^{Footnote 1486}

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (United Kingdom Government) is responsible for designing sport policy across the United Kingdom, which includes England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.^{Footnote 1487} The department’s sport policy promotes sport from an early age and encourages sport throughout life.^{Footnote 1488}

UK Sport is described as a government arm’s-length executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department that serves all of the United Kingdom.^{Footnote 1489} UK Sport is responsible for high-performance sport. It has no direct involvement in community or school sport.^{Footnote 1490} It is funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the National Lottery.^{Footnote 1491} Its primary mission is to lead and support Olympic and Paralympic sport in the UK, and ensure British athletes achieve sustained world-class success.^{Footnote 1492} UK Sport therefore works closely with the British Olympic Association.^{Footnote 1493} In this context, UK Sport developed the strategy entitled “Powering Success Inspiring Impact.” This strategy for the period of 2021 to 2031 has three core ambitions: keep winning and win well, grow a thriving sport system, and inspire positive change.^{Footnote 1494} The organization also developed a Para performance framework.^{Footnote 1495} UK Sport is accountable to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.^{Footnote 1496}

In contrast, promoting sport participation and implementing the federal sport policy across the United Kingdom falls to a sport entity within each country. Those entities are Sport England, Sport Northern Ireland, Sport Scotland, and Sport Wales.^{Footnote 1497} England, Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland each compete as separate countries in the Commonwealth Games and are supported by their respective national sport entity.^{Footnote 1498}

Given that UK Sport oversees high-performance sport, but grassroots sport is overseen by sport entities within each country of the United Kingdom, some felt that this approach created a disconnect.

New Zealand

New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy established through various statutes and conventions^{Footnote 1499}. It does not have states or provincial governments. Its government is divided between the central government, which makes decisions affecting the country, and local governments, which look after the interests and needs of specific communities through regional, city, or district councils.^{Footnote 1500}

The central government is responsible for issues of national interest, including housing, welfare, education, health, defence, and foreign policy.^{Footnote 1501} Local governments’ powers are defined by various legislation. They include providing local services, levying property taxes, and other regulatory tasks. Local governments are independent of, but subordinate to, the central government.^{Footnote 1502}

Sport New Zealand is the Crown entity responsible for promoting, encouraging, and supporting physical recreation and sport in the country.^{Footnote 1503} It was established by the Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act^{Footnote 1504}. Sport New Zealand also includes High Performance Sport New Zealand, which leads the high-performance sport system and supports athletes and coaches. It aims to deliver performances on the world stage that inspire the nation and its communities, helping to build national identity and promote New Zealand internationally.^{Footnote 1505}

Sport New Zealand reports to the Minister for Sport and Recreation through its board of directors. The minister appoints the board chair and members of the board. The board sets and guides the Sport New Zealand strategic direction.^{Footnote 1506} It is also responsible for implementing sport strategies that aim to improve physical activity and well-being.

Sport New Zealand has two principal strategic directions: “Every Body Active: Strategic Direction 2020–2032,”^{Footnote 1507} focuses on physical activity, and “High-Performance Sport New Zealand 2025–2028 Strategic Plan,” focuses on high performance.^{Footnote 1508} It also developed a Disability Action Plan designed to support the development of an inclusive and enabling “Play, Active Recreation and Sport System” so that people with disabilities have equal opportunities to achieve their goals.^{Footnote 1509}

The national government funds Sport New Zealand to promote play, active recreation, and sport, with a focus on system leadership and national well-being.^{Footnote 1510} At the same time, the country’s 11 regional councils and 67 territorial authorities also have their own responsibilities. The territorial authorities are collectively referred to as “local authorities.” They support their communities by providing sport facilities, funding, and promoting participation as the biggest service provider of recreational programs and infrastructure. Local authorities also partner with national, regional, and local sports organizations to deliver community sport and maintain recreational facilities. They are recognized as providing locally led decision making and community development.^{Footnote 1511}

The Aspen Institute has recognized the country’s model for sport delivery to youth as one of the world’s best-organized systems, with both national and regional governing bodies supporting local clubs.^{Footnote 1512}

Norway

Norway is a constitutional monarchy with a written constitution.^{Footnote 1513} It is a unitary state — that is, it has a single central government. Sport and the promotion of physical activity are separate portfolios in Norway. The Department of Civil Society and Sport, under the Ministry of Culture and Equality, is generally responsible for sport policy, supporting voluntary sport organizations and allocating public funding for sport.^{Footnote 1514} The Government of Norway allocates 64% of the gaming proceeds from Norsk Tipping (the national lottery and sports betting mechanism) to sport.^{Footnote 1515}

Separate ministries are responsible for physical activity in schools and public health initiatives. The Ministry of Education and Research is responsible for physical education in schools.^{Footnote 1516} The Department of Public Health, under the Ministry of Health Care and Services, is responsible for promoting health at the population level, including measures to support increased physical activity.^{Footnote 1517} National strategies and guidelines for physical activity are developed by the Department of Public Health.

The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports (Norges idrettsforbund og olympiske og paralympiske komité) is the government’s principal partner in organized sport.^{Footnote 1518} It is a nongovernmental organization responsible for governing organized sport in the country. The organization is the result of a merger between the Norwegian Confederation of Sports, the Norwegian Olympic Committee, and the Norwegian Paralympic Committee.^{Footnote 1519} Its members are the 55 national federations, 11 regional confederations, approximately 328 sports councils, and 9,454 clubs.^{Footnote 1520}

The central administration of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports coordinates a number of activities for the federations and confederations, such as the distribution of lottery funds.^{Footnote 1521} It also develops policies and guidelines for sport in Norway, including a long-term strategy for Norwegian sports, Children’s Rights in Sports, and the Norwegian Para sport strategy.^{Footnote 1522}

The guiding vision for sport in Norway is “Joy of Sport — for All.”^{Footnote 1523} Community sport and lifelong participation are key priorities.^{Footnote 1524} Children’s rights are central to the delivery of sport programs for children in Norway. The General Assembly of the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports adopted the Children’s Rights in Sports and Provisions on Children’s Sports. The first guidelines for children’s sport were adopted in 1976, and were later revised in 2007, 2015, and 2019.^{Footnote 1525}

The Children’s Rights in Sports are based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. They are designed to help children have a positive experience every time they participate in training, competition, or other activities.^{Footnote 1526} They promote and safeguard children’s best interests, and include:

the right to participate in training that is safe and secure, without pressure or exploitation
the right to participate in training and competitive activities that are designed to help develop friendships and feelings of solidarity
the right to express their own opinions and have them considered the right to choose which sport or how many sports they wish to participate in
the right to determine how much they wish to practise their chosen sport
the right to choose whether they would like to participate in competitions
the right to participate in training and competitive activities that are suitable for their age, physical development, and level of maturity
the right to participate in sports, regardless of their family’s financial situation or involvement^{Footnote 1527}.

The Children’s Rights in Sports and the Provisions on Children’s Sports state that all sport activities should be developed and adapted for children so that they are encouraged to try new things and are motivated to participate in sport for as long as possible.^{Footnote 1528} The Provisions on Children’s Sports regulate competitions for children until the age of 12. Children are not allowed to compete until they turn six. They are also not allowed to participate in Norwegian Championships, European Championships, World Championships, or similar competitions until they turn 12.^{Footnote 1529} Additionally, all clubs that organize children’s sport must also appoint an individual with specific responsibility for children in that club, which includes the responsibility to ensure that the club’s board actively supports these rights and provisions.^{Footnote 1530}

The organization has also developed a Para sport strategy called “One Sport — Equal Opportunities: Norwegian Parasport strategy 2022–2027.”^{Footnote 1531} The strategy aims to foster inclusive sport environments by ensuring that people with disabilities have equal opportunities for sport and are met with respect, knowledge, and inclusion. It focuses on supporting both grassroots and elite athletes with disabilities by ensuring disability-inclusive facilities, training and education on Para sport, and awareness initiatives.^{Footnote 1532}

Over the course of our engagement, the Norwegian approach to sport was most often referenced as an ideal model. Many admired how Norway’s sport system and culture results in developing children and communities and elite adult athletes who perform well in both winter and summer sports.^{Footnote 1533} Norway has a highly successful elite-sport system and is among the most successful nations in Olympic competition.^{Footnote 1534} However, participants noted that much of Norway’s success comes from how it highly values sport and physical activity and the benefits these bring to public health and communities. The country’s commitment to these values is reflected in government policies. Norway’s approach to sport for youth and Children’s Rights in Sports was noted by the Aspen Institute.^{Footnote 1535}

As we have just seen, international models offer different approaches to sport and have their own distinct and unique features, which are invaluable as we redefine Canada’s approach to sport.

Reminder of the Commission’s preliminary recommendations

In its Preliminary Report, the Commission recommended that a single federal department should be responsible for both sport and physical activity. These responsibilities are currently divided between two departments, with Canadian Heritage responsible for sport (via Sport Canada) and the Ministry of Health responsible for physical activity (via the Public Health Agency of Canada).

The Commission also recommended the creation of a Centralized Sport Entity to address the current lack of leadership and the absence of a comprehensive, cohesive, national strategy for sport and physical activity in Canada.

Furthermore, the Commission identified the scope, roles, and responsibilities of this new entity. Its potential roles and responsibilities included:

developing a national sport and physical activity strategy with clearly defined priorities
developing a national Para sport strategy in collaboration with the Para sport community at the national, provincial, and territorial levels
developing and implementing the national coaching certification program
supporting research efforts relevant to health, well-being, and sport and physical activity programs
funding for sport and physical activity, including the receipt, allocation, distribution, and oversight of all federal sport funding governance of sport organizations
serving as custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code and related audits
safe sport education and support of prevention measures including the National Safe Sport Education Program, True Sport Program, and a standardized background screening policy.

These roles and responsibilities are currently performed by several entities, including national Multisport Service Organizations.

Regarding the possible legal structure of the recommended Centralized Sport Entity, the Commission presented five options for consideration in its Preliminary Report: a ministerial department, a ministerial departmental agency, a crown corporation, a not-for-profit created by federal legislation, and a not-for-profit third-party delivery organization. Without making a recommendation on the legal structure of the new entity, at that time the Commission noted that a crown corporation or a not-for-profit created by federal legislation appeared to be preferred options.

Strategic changes for strengthened vision and leadership for sport and physical activity in Canada

As we described in the Preliminary Report, the Commission remains of the view that, to ensure that sport in Canada is inclusive, accessible, well-governed, and safer, strategic changes must be made to improve governmental leadership, unify efforts, and ensure accountability.

Four strategic changes are required. The first three concern government leadership, while the fourth deals with the creation of the Centralized Sport Entity:

The need for strong and effective governmental leadership in sport and physical activity in Canada.
The need for enhanced and improved intergovernmental collaboration that is grounded in accountability to pursue a coordinated, consistent, and harmonized approach at all levels of the sport system.
The need for up-to-date federal sport and physical activity policies that reflect current realities, emerging challenges, and best practices. This includes support, accountability, and transparency in the implementation of such policies.
The need for a centralized, coordinated, and united approach to sport and physical activity in Canada through the creation of a Centralized Sport Entity.

As we outline these changes to improve leadership within the sport system, we provide participants’ perspectives, including what participants shared with the Commission prior to the publication of the Preliminary Report as well as feedback on our preliminary findings and recommendations, including feedback received at the National Summit organized by the Commission.

The need for strong and effective government leadership

In addition to the participants’ perspectives on the federal responsibility for sport and physical activity as outlined in Chapter 5, the Commission received feedback regarding the consolidation of sport and physical activity under the same department, and the importance of federal leadership in the areas of sport and physical activity, which we outline here.

Feedback on the need for strong and effective government leadership

In response to our preliminary findings and recommendations, participants reiterated that there was no true leader in the sport system. Throughout the Commission’s activities, they urged the federal government to provide strong leadership and clear direction for sport and physical activity in Canada. They also called on the government to work closely and collaboratively with the provinces and territories to improve safe sport and the sport system. Participants affirmed that the minister responsible for sport and physical activity should be a full member of the federal cabinet and that sport should be prioritized.

At the same time, participants identified opportunities for Canada to demonstrate leadership on the international stage. In particular, as a part of the launch of the UNESCO’s Global Policy Standards for Inclusive, Equitable and Safe Sport and Physical Education, countries will be selected to participate in a pilot. Participants encouraged Canada to participate in this piloting phase, noting that its involvement would represent a valuable and timely opportunity to contribute to and help shape emerging global standards to promote inclusive, equitable, and safe sport and physical education.

Our preliminary recommendation to integrate the responsibilities for sport and physical activity under the same department received broad support. Participants noted that sport and physical activity were previously integrated under a single department named “Fitness and Amateur Sport” until it was dissolved in 1993. Additionally, because physical activity was given more attention when a single minister was responsible for both sport and physical activity, participants saw reintegrating sport and physical activity as a positive development.

We heard broad, enthusiastic support among participants for a comprehensive approach that considers the entirety of the sport continuum — from participation and physical activity to high-performance sport. Participants told us that that sport and physical activity are intrinsically interconnected, and that promoting physical activity and broad sport participation ultimately supports high-performance sport in Canada.

We did, however, hear some reservations from the sport community about the reintegration of sport and physical activity, which was understood to mean all forms of movement. Some voiced concerns that “physical activity” (in its broadest sense) would be too vast, so they preferred a sport-focused approach. They also noted the need to define the boundaries of physical activity to circumscribe its scope.

Participants cautioned against integrating responsibility for sport and physical activity within Health Canada. They noted that the health system is facing great challenges, the portfolio is already quite extensive, and that sport would not fare well in this setting. They also noted that physical activity received insufficient attention within the health portfolio. Instead, participants proposed various structures to support sport and physical activity at the federal level. Some suggested that physical activity should be transferred to Sport Canada (under Canadian Heritage). Others proposed that a new distinct department encompassing sport and physical activity should be created. A minority of participants believed that the federal government, through Sport Canada, should support only high-performance sport. They felt that support for grassroots sport and physical activity ought to come primarily from provincial and territorial governments.

Calls to Action: the need for strong and effective government leadership

As referenced in Chapter 4 on the constitutional framework of our country, sport is not a head of power identified in the Constitution. As a result, there has been hesitancy by all levels of government to assume a full leadership role and ensure true collaboration between the federal, provincial and territorial levels of government, creating a leadership void. On numerous occasions, questions of jurisdiction and the federated model in Canada were identified as the reasons for our current fragmented sport system. In addition, the absence of consistent ministerial leadership, productive and ongoing intergovernmental collaboration, and the lack of a single entity responsible for providing strategic vision and leadership of sport and physical activity in Canada were listed as significant shortcomings. As a result, the sport system has been left with unclear and inconsistent policy direction and is rife with inefficiencies and redundancies.

Everyone involved in the sport sector, including every person the Commission met, recognizes the immense and numerous benefits of sport and physical activity. However, governments have consistently failed to optimize the value of sport. Considering the undeniable benefits of sport and physical activity, as we outline in Chapter 2, and the safe sport crisis which permeates every level of sport, the Commission is of the view that all levels of governments and the sport sector must elevate sport to the status it deserves.

The Commission’s view of the need for a single federal department to be responsible for both sport and physical activity remains unchanged. In fact, the additional feedback we received following our Preliminary Report emphasized how closely sport and physical activity are linked. This reinforces our view that bringing together sport and physical activity at the federal level is essential for effective leadership and improved coordination within the sport system.

The promotion of sport and physical activity are intrinsically linked. The interdependence of sport and physical activity is illustrated by the fact that both are addressed in one statute: the Physical Activity and Sport Act. Similarly, in our view, sport and physical activity must be integrated at the federal government level to operate effectively and to ensure a consistent approach from the grassroots to the national level, as was the case in the past. A single minister should, therefore, be responsible for sport and physical activity.

In turn, strong and decisive leadership is needed from the federal minister to foster a new and integrated vision for sport and physical activity in Canada. Government and ministerial leadership are essential to guide departmental activities, lead enhanced collaboration with provinces and territories, and shape new structures to ensure a more integrated sport and physical activity system in Canada. Most importantly, stronger leadership will ultimately lead to a stronger and safer sport system. Strong leadership from the minister will continue to remain crucial once the Centralized Sport Entity, which we outline in what follows, is established.

We are of the view that the federal government must take a holistic and balanced strategic approach to developing sport. This means creating safe, welcoming, and inclusive sport environments, while also promoting physical activity as a fundamental element of health and well-being. Without strong leadership, sport and physical activity risk being overshadowed. Accordingly, the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity’s mandate should be to encourage, promote, and develop physical activity and sport for all Canadians.

Given the interdependence between sport and physical activity, we maintain our preliminary recommendation that both must reside within the same government department. Uniting these areas under a single department ensures that the minister benefits from coordinated policy and programmatic support to implement the Physical Activity and Sport Act. This coordination will enable the development and implementation of a unified strategy for sport and physical activity.

As we described earlier in Chapter 5, two distinct federal departments — Canadian Heritage and Health Canada — currently play a role in the Canadian sport and physical activity sector, but in different capacities. The Department of Canadian Heritage, through Sport Canada, is responsible for encouraging, promoting, and developing sport.^{Footnote 1536} Meanwhile, Health Canada, through the Public Health Agency of Canada, aims to examine and improve the physical activity levels of those living in Canada.^{Footnote 1537}

Only the responsibilities of the Public Health Agency of Canada specifically related to the promotion of physical activity ought to be transferred to the department responsible for sport and physical activity. As a part of its current mandate to promote physical activity, the Agency:

provides information related to physical activity and injury prevention, including sport-related concussions
collaborates with partners, including the provinces and territories, on physical activity through the Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council
monitors the physical activity levels of Canadians
provides funding to promote physical activity.^{Footnote 1538}

All other core responsibilities of the Public Health Agency of Canada — including promoting overall health, preventing and controlling chronic health diseases and injuries, preventing and controlling infectious diseases, and preparing for and responding to public health emergencies — should remain with the Agency.^{Footnote 1539}

To be clear, the Commission believes that “sport” is a broad concept that ought to mirror the sport policy and the objectives set out in the Physical Activity and Sport Act, as well as the elements of sport, as defined under the Canadian Sport Policy 2025-2035. That is, sport refers to organized rule-based activities, with a focus on skills development, including community, competitive, and high-performance level activities which can be performed either alone or in a team setting.

Sport ought to be fun, inclusive, accessible, fair, and safe and allow for broad participation by everyone at all levels of sport.

Implicit in this definition is the need to build capacity to increase participation in sport and support the pursuit of excellence.

Physical activity, on the other hand, while part and parcel of sport, refers to less organized or informal activities and movement which are fundamental elements of health and well-being. In other words, while sport is physical activity, physical activity is not always sport. Like sport, physical activity should also be accessible to all. We note that the delineation between the Public Health Agency of Canada’s support of physical activity initiatives and other health-promotion programs is currently unclear. This will need to be clarified during the transition process.

In our view, legislative amendments are advisable to make lasting structural changes to consolidate government leadership for sport and physical activity. Legislating these changes protects them from being easily changed or undone by future governments. Until the required legislative amendments can be made, the federal government should immediately ensure that a single federal minister is responsible for both sport and physical activity. The Public Health Agency of Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage should both support the minister during this period. Formal cooperation mechanisms between the Agency and Canadian Heritage should be established.

Calls to Action

The Commission calls for the following actions to be taken:

The Government of Canada ensure that a single federal minister is responsible for sport and physical activity (as was the case for the period from August 16, 2023, to March 14, 2025), and subsequently ensure that this minister is supported by a single federal department responsible for both sport and physical activity.
The Government of Canada make the necessary legislative amendments to ensure that a single federal minister responsible for sport and physical activity is supported by a single federal department, to promote long-lasting structural changes.

The need for enhanced intergovernmental collaboration grounded in accountability

The Commission received feedback related to the collaboration between federal, provincial, and territorial governments in the areas of sport, physical activity, and recreation, which we outline in Chapter 5 and below.

Feedback on the need for improved intergovernmental collaboration grounded in accountability

In responding to the Preliminary Report, participants noted that recommendations related to intergovernmental collaboration needed to be strengthened. Participants, including representatives from provincial and territorial governments, consistently stressed that effective collaboration among all levels of government is crucial to the wellbeing of Canadian sport.

There was a strong sense that the federated model often served as an excuse for governments to deflect responsibility onto others, without assuming leadership or being accountable for the development of sport and physical activity. Participants noted long-standing jurisdictional challenges. Some felt that provinces and territories have sometimes abdicated their responsibilities for sport and physical activity, creating a leadership void. They suggested that, in response, Canadians turned to the federal government and other sport organizations to fill this void, which resulted in fragmented and disjointed approaches to sport and physical activity across the country.

We were told that federal, provincial, and territorial governments need to work together to build a more unified system. In this respect, we heard a strong willingness and commitments from a majority of provincial and territorial governments to collaborate with the federal government to improve safe sport and the sport system in Canada.

Participants recognized that there are multiple forums for intergovernmental collaboration in sport and physical activity. These include the Ministers Conferences, which bring together the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for sport, physical activity and recreation approximately once a year, as well as the Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council, and its committees.^{Footnote 1540} Moreover, we were told that the working groups of the Federal/Provincial-Territorial Sport Committee are in the process of being reviewed, considering the recent renewal of the Canadian Sport Policy. Participants advised that these groups have previously focussed on issues such as maltreatment in sport and good governance.

However, we heard that these mechanisms face important challenges. Participants in our engagement activities described these forums as inefficient. They cited infrequent meetings between ministers who are responsible for setting policy directions and approving collaborative actions. We were advised that the news releases to be published following the Ministers’ Conferences were typically drafted prior to the meetings, suggesting that key outcomes may have been predetermined and that the meetings themselves are not being used as forums for meaningful discussion. Some participants identified the need for active working groups to drive progress, noting that they have worked well in the past.

Representatives from provincial and territorial governments suggested creating clear action plans. These plans should show which level of government is responsible for each task and clarify roles to facilitate and improve collaboration. We were reminded that flexibility is required to enable provinces and territories and the federal government to work in a complementary manner. A flexible approach to collaboration should allow all levels of government to tailor programs, policies, and approaches to their regional realities, while still achieving consistency with desired outcomes.

We were told that communication and transparency are essential for cooperation between governments. Some representatives from provincial and territorial governments informed us that such communication was lacking during the most recent renewal of the Canadian Sport Policy and the negotiation of bilateral agreements with provinces and territories.

Participants contrasted successful examples of intergovernmental collaboration in other sectors, such as health care and child care, where shared commitment has produced tangible benefits for Canadians. The federal, provincial, and territorial governments successfully collaborated to create a multilateral framework to support increased quality, accessibility, affordability, flexibility, and inclusivity in early learning and child care.^{Footnote 1541} In 2021, the Government of Canada made an investment of over $27 billion over five years to build a Canada-wide early learning and child-care system with provinces and territories.^{Footnote 1542} This example demonstrates that the federal government has been willing to lead in other areas. Participants felt that the same resolve should be applied to sport and physical activity.

On one hand, we heard that stronger governmental collaboration is essential for advancing sport and physical activity in Canada. Participants identified improved transparency, better communication, and stronger leadership as priorities to ensure that collaborative efforts translate into meaningful and lasting impact. On the other hand, some participants believed intergovernmental collaboration in the sport, physical activity and recreation sector was already very effective compared to other sectors, but that maybe the public was not aware of the work undertaken by governments.

Moreover, cross-sectoral collaboration emerged as an important theme in efforts to modernize and strengthen the sport system’s governance. Participants highlighted that effective collaboration was essential given that the sport system is broad and involves multiple domains, such as education and infrastructure. They noted that effective collaboration between governments should therefore not be limited to the sport, physical activity, and recreation sectors. We heard calls to improve collaboration between the sport, physical activity, and recreation sector and other areas such as health, education, finance, economic development and infrastructure. The goal would be to support facility development and renewal and enhance sport and physical activity programs in schools, among other priorities.

Importantly, to continue and further efforts toward reconciliation, Indigenous people highlighted the need for Indigenous people to exercise control over sport within their communities. Such decisions, they emphasized, must be made by and for Indigenous people. We were advised that sustained collaboration is essential and that proactive steps should be taken by decision-makers to engage with Indigenous people. This would ensure their meaningful participation in leadership and decision-making processes related to all aspects of sport. In doing so, the Canadian sport system would include Indigenous perspectives.

Call to Action: the need for enhanced intergovernmental collaboration grounded in accountability

Even though there are legal and jurisdictional considerations, responsibility for sport and physical activity, given their critical roles in Canadian life, ought to be shared across all levels of government. Strong collaboration and clear communication between federal, provincial, and territorial governments are crucial to address the safe sport crisis and advance sport and physical activity in Canada. Enhanced collaboration is also needed to promote consistent and harmonized approaches to promoting safe, inclusive, accessible, and well-governed sport opportunities for all Canadians at all levels.

Only by working together can all governments improve safe sport in Canada, improve the sport system, and establish Canada as a world leader in sport and physical activity.

As we previously noted, federal, provincial, and territorial ministers for sport, physical activity, and recreation set the direction for shared priorities and collaborative policies in sport and physical activity during their Ministers Conferences. These priorities are then implemented through the Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council and its related committees, such as the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Sport Committee. The committees can create, manage, and dissolve subcommittees or working groups composed of government officials and, where appropriate, experts from the sector, as needed.

Despite the existence of forums to promote intergovernmental collaboration to advance sport and physical activity, these mechanisms have not consistently delivered the desired results. Ministers Conferences, for example, occur too infrequently, with only three meetings every four years. This lack of regular engagement between ministers limits opportunities for meaningful dialogue to address emerging challenges in a timely manner or follow up effectively on collaborative action priorities. Infrequent meetings impede ministers’ ability to address emerging complex issues that require attention, coordination, and sustained commitment from all parties. Examples of issues include the implementation of the Canadian Sport Policy and collaborative actions to address abuse, harassment, and discrimination in sport.

By contrast, we understand that intergovernmental collaboration between ministers is more frequent in other sectors, such as Justice and Public Safety, Finance, the Status of Women, and Labour Markets.^{Footnote 1543} For example, meetings between the ministers of Finance, Justice, and Public Safety are held once or twice a year, compared to three times every four years for ministers responsible for sport, physical activity and recreation.^{Footnote 1544}

To improve the effectiveness of intergovernmental collaboration, the Commission recommends that Ministers Conferences be convened more frequently and as needed to address critical issues, such as the current safe sport crisis. Sufficient time must be allocated during these meetings to ensure thorough exploration and meaningful discussion of each topic.

The Commission emphasizes that it is crucial that agreed-upon policies and collaborative priorities are implemented. While all levels of government must continue to work together to do so, each provincial and territorial government has a specific responsibility for enacting relevant measures within its own jurisdiction. We specifically address federal sport and physical activity policies in what follows.

The Commission encourages the federal government to collaborate with its provincial and territorial counterparts to implement concrete measures to ensure greater transparency and accountability as it relates to intergovernmental collaboration. Very little information is made available to the public when it comes to intergovernmental collaboration in the areas of sport, physical activity, and recreation.

While there are differences in the information reported to the public following intergovernmental collaboration, some forums and sectors are substantially more transparent. Some have websites providing information to the public on their structure and initiatives. For example, the Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration’s website displays their organizational chart, including the names of all their working groups.^{Footnote 1545} The Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety publishes reports and studies documenting its ongoing work.^{Footnote 1546}

With these examples in mind, one measure to improve the transparency of intergovernmental collaboration in sport, physical activity and recreation could include publishing annual reports on the activities carried out by the Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council, its committees, and working groups. Other similar measures could be considered.

We note that once the Centralized Sport Entity is established, as the Commission recommends and explains later in this chapter, the federal minister responsible for sport and physical activity, together with the department officials supporting them, will continue to be responsible for collaborating with their provincial and territorial counterparts, including the negotiation of bilateral agreements. Moreover, collaboration between the ministers, department officials, and the Centralized Sport Entity will be vital in this context, and the Entity should be included during these meetings.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

The Government of Canada, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, enhance the rigour of intergovernmental collaboration to improve safe sport in Canada and the sport system, and advance sport and physical activity for all Canadians. Concrete actions could include the following:
1. increasing the frequency of the Ministers Conferences
2. promoting cross-sectoral collaboration
3. taking concrete measures to increase the transparency and public accountability of intergovernmental collaboration.

The need for federal sport and physical activity policy upkeep and implementation

The Commission received feedback related to the oversight and implementation of federal sport and physical activity policy, which we outline in Chapter 5 and in what follows.

Feedback on the need for federal sport and physical activity policy upkeep and implementation

Generally, participants reiterated clear concern that federal sport policies, like the Policy on Sport for Persons with a Disability (2006) and the Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events (2008), are outdated and no longer adequately support the Canadian sport system’s evolving needs and realities. They emphasized that the federal government must renew existing frameworks so that they can address present-day challenges and priorities. Others proposed new targeted government interventions focused on sport infrastructure, sport and climate change, and equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility.

Different opinions were shared with the Commission regarding our preliminary recommendation to create a national Para sport strategy. Indeed, within the Disability sport community, there is inconsistency about whether Disability sport should be captured within a broader sport policy or should, instead, be the subject of a dedicated strategy. Some participants were of the view that Disability sport is a part of the sport system and, therefore, should be captured in a single Canadian sport policy. Others were of the view that a unique, specific policy for Disability sport was needed. Irrespective, all agreed that such a policy should be developed by and with members of the Disability sport community.

There was strong agreement among participants that sport and physical activity policy renewal and development must be based on evidence. They stressed that ongoing investment in research in sport and physical activity is fundamental to designing innovative policies and advancing national priorities in these areas.

Although updating policies is essential, participants told us that implementing these policies is what defines true progress. Policies and plans are worthless unless actions follow. We heard that many strategies have been created but remained largely unimplemented. To address these concerns, we were told that strategies needed to be linked with specific, measurable results, along with support for their implementation.

Calls to Action: the need for federal sport and physical activity policy upkeep and implementation

Canada has demonstrated strength in fostering collaborative approaches to sport and physical activity policy. The Commission recognizes that the Canadian Sport Policy, for example, was the product of extensive cooperation and engagement, reflecting shared priorities and a vision for sport in Canada.

The Commission was encouraged to see a strong focus on participation, inclusion, and access, as well as a thoughtful approach to balancing high performance and participation in the Canadian Sport Policy 2025–2035. Participants in our engagement activities welcomed this change in direction for sport in Canada. However, the policy fails to provide guidance or concrete measures to ensure these priorities become reality.

We have also noted challenges with implementing collaborative actions with respect to safe sport. Federal, provincial, and territorial governments committed to implementing a coordinated intergovernmental approach to address harassment, abuse, and discrimination in sport, as contemplated by the 2019 Red Deer Agreement. At this point, there is still no evidence of progress on the adoption of such collaborative actions, and maltreatment continues to be prevalent across the country at every level of sport. Improved policy implementation and genuine collaboration are essential to achieve a truly safe sport system for all Canadians.

Our calls to improve the development and renewal of policies and their implementation are addressed in turn below.

Developing and renewing policies

Aside from the Canadian Sport Policy, the federal government’s sport policy framework is widely viewed as outdated. Most policies are more than a decade old. As we previously noted, federal sport-related policies include:

Sport Canada’s Policy on Aboriginal Peoples’ Participation in Sport (2005)
Policy on Sport for Persons with a Disability (2006)
Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events (2008)
Actively Engaged: A Policy on Sport for Women and Girls (2009)
Canadian High Performance Sport Strategy (2019).

These policies have not kept pace with the evolving needs or the expectations of Canadians. The Commission is of the view that the federal government should review and revitalize its sport-related policies in association with the implementation of the Canadian Sport Policy 2025–2035 to better serve the sport community. It is imperative that the federal government commit to regularly reviewing and updating sport and physical activity policies to ensure that they align with current priorities, emerging challenges, and best practices.

The federal government’s sport and physical activity policies must also reflect the values that are important to our society such as respect, diversity, inclusion, and fairness. Current federal sport policies and programs do not always reflect these values.

Sport is a core pillar of Canadian identity, and there is a clear desire for a sport system that embodies our shared values, inspires national pride, and promotes health and well-being, while being held to the highest standards.

Disability sport strategy

As a part of the broader efforts to renew and modernize federal sport policies, the Commission is of the view that the federal government should develop a separate national strategy for Disability sport. This strategy, which would be developed in collaboration with the Disability sport community, would encompass Disability sport, Para sport, and Paralympic sport.

The Canadian Sport Policy 2025–2035 broadly promotes inclusion and accessibility and briefly acknowledges that persons with disabilities face barriers to accessing infrastructure and equipment. However, it does not offer specific, actionable measures to address these barriers. Without a dedicated Disability sport strategy, the Disability sport community risks being marginalized and overshadowed within Canada’s sport system. A targeted strategy is needed to address these concerns.

In the spirit of the “nothing about us, without us” principle, the Disability sport community must be involved with conceiving, developing, and implementing this strategy. Accordingly, specific concerns that the strategy should address will need to be established with this community’s collaboration. We have also noted that the federal government should also update and modernize the Policy on Sport for Persons with a Disability (2006). Canada needs to learn from other countries that have successfully developed and introduced policies and strategies focused on advancing Disability, Para and Paralympic sport.

Equity, diversity, inclusion, and access strategies

There is no denying that an equitable, inclusive, diverse and accessible sport system is critical for society. The national suite of sport-related policies has significant gaps in this area. Challenges remain in sport infrastructure and the promotion of equity, diversity, inclusion, and access in sport and physical activity. The Canadian Sport Policy itself has identified enhanced participation as an area requiring more emphasis.

To address these shortcomings, the Commission strongly believes that the federal government should work collaboratively with provincial and territorial governments to develop and implement a national sport infrastructure strategy and a national strategy on equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in sport and physical activity (both of which are detailed in Chapter 7).

High-performance and broad sport and physical activity participation strategy

The federal government should develop and implement a new strategy to promote broad participation in sport and physical activity, in collaboration with members of the sport system, including sport organizations, consistent with a new approach that balances support for high performance and broad sport participation. It should encompass broad sport participation and high-performance sport, consistent with the objectives outlined in the Canadian Sport Policy 2025–2035.

Despite recognizing the benefits of sport participation for all Canadians, there is currently no coordinated, long-term federal approach focused on increasing participation. The federal government has only a high-performance strategy: the Canadian High Performance Sport Strategy (2019). In contrast, other sport-leading nations such as Australia, New Zealand, and Norway have also established policies designed to promote broad participation in sport. It is essential to recognize the importance of addressing participation across the entire continuum of sport, from the grassroots to high-performance. A new policy should replace the Canadian High Performance Sport Strategy (2019).

Evidenced-based and inclusive policy development

The development of sport and physical activity policies must be evidence-based. As in other sectors, policymakers need to rely on robust data derived from comprehensive research and ongoing analysis to inform their decision-making processes. Such an approach will assist in ensuring that policies are “cutting edge” and reflect contemporary understanding. For this reason, it is essential that the federal government has access to comprehensive data describing sport and physical activity at every level in Canada, including participation rates.

Some organizations endeavour to provide this data, including Statistics Canada, the Sport Information Resource Centre, ParticipACTION, and the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute. Nevertheless, there is a lack of regular, systematic collection of data relating to sport and physical activity, including participation, funding, infrastructure, and participant well-being. There is also insufficient coordination among these organizations leading to the duplication of efforts.

Accordingly, the federal government must ensure that there is a national tool to systematically and regularly gather and analyze this information to support policy development. As Chapter 11 explains, the tool must also include regular collection and analysis of safe sport indicators. In addition, the Commission recognizes the lack of research, information, and data specific to Indigenous people and sport in Canada (see Chapter 6). The federal government must provide continued funding to support research in this area.

We further note that applying an equity, diversity, and inclusion lens to sport and physical activity policy development and decision making is essential. A concern for inclusion must inform every stage of policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Systematically recognizing and responding to the diverse needs, perspectives, and experiences of all individuals, including Indigenous people, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups, will foster a sport system that truly reflects the values of diversity and inclusion, and helps to eliminate barriers to participation for all Canadians.

Implementing and monitoring policies

The development of comprehensive sport and physical activity policies is an important first step toward fostering safe, inclusive, equitable, and accessible sport environments, as well as promoting physical activity. But the creation of such policies alone is insufficient to achieve meaningful outcomes.

Throughout the Commission’s engagement activities, the federal government’s failure to translate policy commitments into tangible programs and meaningful outcomes emerged as a recurring theme. All too often, decision-makers create policies and priorities but take little action to implement them. Consequently, no evidence of meaningful progress follows. Repeated inaction erodes trust in the sport system and undermines future efforts to drive change.

To address this shortcoming, the Commission is of the view that policies must be accompanied by concrete plans and programs to support their implementation. Policies must be grounded in clear and measurable outcomes, including explicit benchmarks or targets. Establishing benchmarks is essential to assess progress and permits transparency in reporting outcomes. Most importantly, the implementation of these policies requires investment and strong political leadership.

The Government of Canada should annually report on the activities undertaken to meet its sport and physical activity policy objectives in a clear manner and with reference to specific benchmarks.^{Footnote 1547} Regular, transparent reporting on government policies is crucial to foster accountability and public trust. These practices would allow the government and the public to track progress, highlight areas needing improvement, and ensure that policies achieve their intended impact. This would be distinct from the obligation to review programs every five years which the Financial Administration Act requires. The focus of these annual reports should be on transparent communication with the public about policy progress.

Calls to Action

The Commission calls for the following actions to be taken:

The Government of Canada review its sport-related policies and commit to regularly reviewing sport and physical activity policies and strategies to reflect current realities, emerging challenges, and best practices. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.
The Government of Canada, in collaboration with the Disability sport community at the national, provincial, and territorial levels, develop a national Disability sport strategy to promote access to sport for persons with disabilities, which includes Para sport and Paralympic sport. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.
The Government of Canada develop a national strategy to promote participation in sport and physical activity at all levels, encompassing broad sport participation and high-performance sport. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.
The Government of Canada develop and implement action plans and institute programs to support all its sport and physical activity policies and strategies. Each action plan should clearly define the policy’s objectives, set measurable targets, and outline specific actions to be taken by the Government of Canada. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.
The Government of Canada, to promote transparency and accountability, regularly and publicly report on the implementation and results of federal sport and physical activity policies and programs. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.
The Government of Canada establish a comprehensive national tool to regularly collect and analyze data on key indicators of sport and physical activity, including participation.
The Government of Canada allocate continued funding for Indigenous-led research specific to Indigenous people and sport in Canada.

The need for a centralized, coordinated, and united approach to sport and physical activity in Canada and a Centralized Sport Entity

Here we consider participants’ perspectives we received prior to the release of the Preliminary Report and the feedback we received with respect to our preliminary recommendation for the creation of a Centralized Sport Entity. Before outlining this feedback, we wish to emphasize that while we use the phrase “Centralized Sport Entity” to refer to the recommended entity, its mandate and responsibilities are paramount, not its name.

Feedback on the need for a centralized, coordinated, and united approach to sport and physical activity in Canada and on the Centralized Sport Entity

While some skepticism was expressed about the creation of a Centralized Sport Entity, a wide majority of participants expressed support for the Commission’s preliminary recommendation related to the creation of a new Centralized Sport Entity. In what follows we outline the feedback we received supporting the Centralized Sport Entity followed by the concerns participants raised regarding it. We conclude with suggestions to address these concerns.

Factors and considerations for a Centralized Sport Entity

Among those in support of the Centralized Sport Entity, it was noted that if given a clear vision and mandate, the Centralized Sport Entity would become the unified voice of the Canadian sport and physical activity community that is so desperately needed. They recognized that the sport “system” is broken and that taking steps toward establishing a Centralized Sport Entity with a view of all levels of the system, from national to local, was critical. We also heard of the importance of ensuring the Centralized Sport Entity advances and celebrates sport at all levels.

Participants emphasized the need for a Centralized Sport Entity that goes beyond the role currently played by Sport Canada, which many defined as primarily a funding function. Some described how other commonwealth countries had taken a similar approach to centralizing sport within one entity in support of this recommendation.

Participants highlighted that the Centralized Sport Entity is needed to address the transformational changes that the system so urgently requires. They further asserted that one national authority would be in a better position to bring together all the fragmented amateur sport organizations in Canada to create a unified voice. A majority of participants supported the leadership role that the Centralized Sport Entity would play in setting policy and strategy directions. They also recognized the importance of a single independent entity implementing the combined strategy of sport and physical activity, from the grassroots to the podium, while enhancing collaboration and reducing bureaucracy.

Several provincial and territorial governments also recognized the benefits of taking a centralized and coordinated approach to sport, as we recommended with the creation of the Centralized Sport Entity, because they have undertaken a similar approach to organizing sport and physical activity within their own jurisdiction. In those settings, the assigned entities have, for example, assumed responsibilities for planning, programming, and funding amateur sport.

Some participants shared that government oversight had faltered, if not completely failed them, because ministers and bureaucrats were routinely biased and sided with sport organizations rather than with athletes. On that note, the idea of a Centralized Sport Entity was seen as a positive step toward less political interference than has been noted in recent years.

The Commission, as we set out earlier in the section summarizing the recommendations made in our Preliminary Report, recommended several roles and responsibilities for the Centralized Sport Entity. These included, for example, funding for sport and physical activity, the development of a cohesive national sport and physical activity strategy, and responsibility for the governance of sport organizations by serving as custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code and related audits. Participants also suggested additional roles and responsibilities for the Centralized Sport Entity, namely:

development of a collaborative infrastructure review and sport infrastructure strategy
development of sustainable sport in the context of climate change
development of a targeted excellence strategy
good governance and human rights education
sport participation and access
advocacy for physical activity and active lifestyles
cross-sectoral and intergovernmental collaboration
official and referee training/certification
revenue generation, including an advancement arm to pool donations or a licensing and consulting arm that sells curricula, for example.

Participants emphasized that in fulfilling its mandate, the Centralized Sport Entity ought to meaningfully engage with the sport and physical activity communities to ensure that their perspectives and needs are heard and considered.

Although a majority expressed support for a Centralized Sport Entity in Canada, some shared skepticism considering its breadth of responsibilities, fearing that it would be a change only in form, not substance, and that the same known individuals and entities would be at the helm.

We also heard that perhaps the Commission was asking too much of the entity and that this could risk lowering the likelihood of its creation, let alone its success. Some expressed that there was a lack of clarity in the Commission’s Preliminary Report around its proposed responsibilities. Those participants were left confused given that some of the entity’s roles and responsibilities are currently performed by Sport Canada and national Multisport Service Organizations. It was unclear to them whether these organizations would cease to exist once the Centralized Sport Entity was created or whether the entity would result in an added layer of duplicative services. Others were also left wondering whether National Sport Organizations, the Safe Sport Complaint Mechanism, and the Sport and Dispute Resolution Centre would fold into the Centralized Sport Entity.

We also heard that to maintain the entity’s integrity, its role should be limited to the regulation and oversight of sport, not delivery and implementation. The latter roles were seen as the National Sport Organizations and Multisport Service Organizations’ responsibility. Some also proposed that the funding and oversight functions should be separated into two distinct entities.

In addition to concerns regarding the scope of roles and responsibilities, some worried that the change would be more of a form-over-substance exercise leading to a simple transfer of current responsibilities and related challenges in the system to a new entity.

We were repeatedly told that genuine change would not be possible if the new entity is established and led by the same familiar groups and people. Participants who were failed by the current system’s structures reiterated that rebuilding trust in the sport system was essential. They emphasized that a Centralized Sport Entity replicating the current system with the same individuals as decision-makers, but under a new name, would not address this need. We were told that the new entity needs to be constructed and seen as a new organization steered by dynamic new leadership.

Others told us that a small contingent of decision-makers and senior leadership within the Canadian sport system had gained massive influence over the direction of priorities and funds and directly or indirectly benefitted from the status quo. Some recognized that while these decision-makers may agree that the system needs to be improved, they would not support changes that could impact the status quo and their interests. Such changes could alter their influence and power.

We also heard concern that those in favour of and actively advocating for a Centralized Sport Entity would be the same people leading that entity. This would perpetuate the issues that the Commission has identified rather than break the cycle. Participants therefore advocated for a fresh start that goes beyond the advancement and pursuit of high-performance sport and includes the direct input of the entire sport sector.

Suggestions on the scope of the Centralized Sport Entity

Considering the scope of roles and responsibilities that would fall within the Centralized Sport Entity, it was suggested that a transitional task group be established to oversee the process. More specifically, participants proposed a phased approach initially focusing on national-level funded sport organizations to achieve early success while designing the entity for broader, long-term impact.

To address their concerns and skepticism about the Centralized Sport Entity, participants agreed that the entity could not be a reiteration of the current sport structures or transpose Sport Canada into a new structure.

Participants also agreed that independence from government, high governance standards, and accountability were important features that should be reflected in this new entity. They were also in favour of an entity established by legislation, recognizing it would be more likely to withstand a change of government and its priorities.

A crown corporation or a not-for-profit created by legislation were the most frequently discussed structures. Participants highlighted that a crown corporation would provide several advantages, including predictable and permanent federal funding, and a line of accountability to the government but with the required independence and autonomy. They also noted that Australia balances both high-performance and grassroots sport through the Australian Sport Commission, which is the equivalent of a Canadian crown corporation.

Others preferred the not-for-profit structure, created by federal legislation. They indicated that this structure would provide permanency through its enabling legislation and independence because it would be governed independently.

Calls to Action: the need for a centralized, coordinated, and united approach to sport and physical activity in Canada and on the Centralized Sport Entity

As we outlined earlier in this chapter, the safe sport crisis has prompted Canadians to call for a redefinition of how sport and physical activity are governed and overseen in Canada. This redefined approach must be comprehensive and cohesive across all levels of sport participation in the country. The responsibility for promoting sport and for improving physical actively levels in Canada must be brought back together under the same minister and supported by one department. Our approach to sport must encompass both the pursuit of excellence in high-performance sport and broad sport participation. Decisions made with respect to sport and physical activity must be evidence-based and timely, not shaped by undue political influence and pressure. More importantly, a single point of leadership for sport and physical activity in Canada will provide clearer and greater accountability.

A Centralized Sport Entity will allow for a harmonized, strategic, and coordinated approach to sport across the country. Uniting Canada’s sport and physical activity organizations will lead to better efficiencies, reduce redundancies, and clarify responsibilities. This will create synergies and efficiencies between sport and physical activity programs. In addition, the centralization of functions as opposed to the fragmentation of functions across different organizations will enhance public confidence by providing a clear, distinct entity they can refer to. In fact, we are of the view that a streamlined structure would create a more direct line of accountability because responsibilities would be clearly defined and could not be shifted among multiple actors. If this is done thoughtfully and comprehensively, trust in the system will increase.

For these reasons, the Commission remains of the view that a centralized approach to sport and physical activity in Canada must be implemented. Considering the feedback received prior to and in response to its preliminary recommendation, the Commission is now even more convinced that an independent Centralized Sport Entity is the necessary instrument to implement these changes.

In what follows, we provide our final findings and Calls to Action as they relate to the new Centralized Sport Entity’s mandate, key functions and responsibilities, legal structure, and funding. We also provide a phased approach to be considered for the implementation and operationalization of this new sport entity.

Centralized Sport Entity: mandate, key functions and responsibilities

The Commission is of the view that the Centralized Sport Entity’s mandate should be to encourage, promote, and develop sport and physical activity in Canada consistent with the Physical Activity and Sport Act. Without limiting this mandate, the Commission is of the view that the functions we identify below ought to be undertaken by the Centralized Sport Entity. It will obviously be up to the Entity to determine how best to implement these functions, including the necessary programs and procedures.

Before outlining these functions, we highlight some of the relevant findings made in other chapters of this report that relate to functions 4 to 7 listed here.

As Chapter 14 with respect to governance outlines, there is currently no body, entity, or authority responsible for the Canadian Sport Governance Code. There is also no consistent approach to governance in the sport world and little to no effective monitoring of compliance with existing governance requirements. Similarly, as Chapter 11 explains, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport^{Footnote 1548} announced its decision in February 2025 to discontinue the work it was doing with the True Sport program. As of the date of writing this Commission’s Report, no organization has taken over administration of this important program. As highlighted earlier in this chapter, although some organizations endeavour to compile and publish data related to sport and physical activity in Canada, there is no organization responsible for the systematic collection of data relating to sport and physical activity, including participation, funding, infrastructure, participant well-being, and the coordination of such efforts.

The following are key functions that should be undertaken by the Centralized Sport Entity to carry out its mandate.

1. Strategic direction and leadership for sport and physical activity

The Centralized Sport Entity would take on a strategic direction and leadership role in enhancing collaboration within the sport and physical activity sector to identify system-wide priorities and ensure coherence among federal, provincial, and territorial sport and physical activity strategies, policies, and investments.

This leadership role should also include identifying opportunities for cross-sectoral collaboration with the sport and physical activity sector, including but not limited to collaboration with sport organizations and multisport service organizations. As outlined earlier, in carrying out this function, the Centralized Sport Entity ought to work and collaborate with the federal and provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport and physical activity, and their department officials supporting them. The Entity should also be included during meetings held by the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for sport and physical activity.

2. Funding for sport and physical activity

Funding for sport and physical activity, including the receipt, allocation, distribution, and oversight of all federal sport and physical activity funding, should reside with the Centralized Sport Entity. Its functions would include but would not be limited to developing a comprehensive long-term funding strategy, developing funding-support criteria, identifying funding conditions, making funding decisions, and distributing funds to sport and physical activity organizations.

Through funding conditions, the Centralized Sport Entity could use funding levers to reinforce the adoption of policies, including but not limited to, safe sport and sport governance, in alignment with identified national, provincial, and territorial priorities.

We recognize that some of these funding functions currently reside with Sport Canada and Own the Podium as they relate to sport, and the Public Health Agency of Canada as they relate to physical activity.

3. Policy for sport and physical activity

The Centralized Sport Entity would be responsible for developing, reviewing, updating, maintaining, and implementing national sport and physical activity policies. Such responsibilities would include but not be limited to:

regularly reviewing sport and sport and physical activity policies and strategies to reflect current realities, emerging challenges, and best practices. This would include the National Background Screening Policy recommended in Chapter 11.
developing a national strategy — supported by programs and concrete measures — to promote participation in sport and physical activity, encompassing high-performance sport and broad sport participation
developing, in collaboration with the Disability sport community at the national, provincial, and territorial levels, a national Disability sport strategy — supported by programs and concrete measures — to promote access to sport for persons with disabilities which includes Para sport, and Paralympic sport
developing a national strategy on equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in sport and physical activity in collaboration with equity-deserving groups.

In addition, the Centralized Sport Entity would be responsible for implementing action plans and instituting programs to support these sport and physical activity policies and strategies. Each action plan should clearly define the policy’s objectives, set measurable targets, and outline specific actions to be taken.

Finally, the Centralized Sport Entity would regularly evaluate and publicly report on the implementation of federal sport and physical activity policies and programs. We recognize that this function currently resides with Sport Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada as it relates to policies that fall within the scope of physical activity as described in the Physical Activity and Sport Act.

4. Custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code and the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport

The Centralized Sport Entity should be responsible for the review, update, and maintenance of these codes to ensure they remain current and relevant. As it currently stands, no entity is responsible for the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Responsibility for the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport currently resides with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.

5. Education and Training

The development and delivery of pan-Canadian education and training efforts related to sport and physical activity should reside with the Centralized Sport Entity. This would include the responsibility to operationalize, update, and deliver the pan-Canadian Safe Sport Education Program, to advance the mission and expand the reach of the True Sport Program across the Canadian sport system, and to develop and implement the national coaching certification program. We recognize that these functions currently reside with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and the Coaching Association of Canada.

6. Compliance and oversight

The Centralized Sport Entity should be responsible for the development and implementation of a monitoring, compliance, and auditing regime of the organizations it funds. This regime’s implementation would ensure effective use of funds and compliance with funding conditions, including but not limited to requirements related to governance and safe sport.

The Centralized Sport Entity would need to develop the required governance expertise to conduct regular audits to ensure implementation and compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. The Entity would also conduct regular and proactive monitoring and auditing of federally funded sport and physical activity organizations.

7. Sport and physical activity research and knowledge

The Centralized Sport Entity should be responsible for supporting and advancing Canadian sport and physical activity through best practice research and knowledge-building efforts for the sport sector, including systematic monitoring of levels of physical activity and sport participation in Canada. These initiatives would inform the policies and strategies developed by the Entity and ensure they are evidence-based.

This function, which, at the moment, mainly resides with the Sport Information and Resource Centre and the Public Health Agency of Canada, would be supported by the national tool to collect and analyze data on key indicators to measure sport and physical activity, including sport participation. It would also be supported by Indigenous-led research, as referenced earlier in a Call to Action made to the Government of Canada.

For many of these functions, the Centralized Sport Entity will need to collaborate with federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for sport, physical activity, and recreation, including participation at the Ministers Conference. In Chapter 10 as it relates to safe sport and Chapter 14 on governance, we explore in further detail the importance and need for this collaboration to ensure harmonized approaches across all levels of sport.

Over time, each responsibility or function outlined here could evolve into its own arm of the Centralized Sport Entity with dedicated subject-matter expertise. The Centralized Sport Entity should leverage the expertise and knowledge within the sport and physical activity communities.

Considering the above key functions and responsibilities, the Commission wishes to clarify that the Centralized Sport Entity would not integrate the following entities: the Canadian Centre on Ethics in Sport; the national and provincial safe sport authorities, or the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority as recommended in Chapter 10; the Sport Dispute and Resolution Centre of Canada; or National Sport Organizations.

In addition, consistent with our Call to Action 3 made in Chapter 6, the Centralized Sport Entity would engage with Indigenous sport organizations, governments, and communities in its decision-making processes to ensure that Indigenous perspectives are reflected throughout its work.

For further clarification, as Chapter 6 outlines, the Commission recognizes the importance for Indigenous sport organizations to be led by and for Indigenous people. As such, Indigenous-led sport organizations, including but not limited to the Aboriginal Sport Circle, the Provincial and Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies, and Indigenous-led games, would not be integrated into the Centralized Sport Entity unless they themselves choose to pursue that path.

Centralized Sport Entity: the appropriate structure

To address the sport system’s current shortcomings as outlined throughout the Commission’s report and this chapter, the Commission is of the view that the structure of the Centralized Sport Entity must reflect the following principles:

Stability. The Entity must be created in a way that guarantees its ongoing and stable existence. This would be achieved by legislating the Entity’s creation and ensuring that it receives stable, ongoing and predictable government funding.
Independence. The Entity must operate at arm’s length from the government and operate independently from governmental influence, pressures, and political cycles.
Accountability. The Entity’s structure must provide a line of accountability to the Government of Canada.
Operational efficiency. The selected structure must provide the Entity with the ability to deliver quality programs and services in a timely manner. It must also afford the Entity with some flexibility to innovate in order to respond and adapt to evolving needs.

As we shared in our Preliminary Report, the Commission identified five different potential models and structures for the Centralized Sport Entity. These models are described in greater detail below, followed by an explanation of why the Commission chose the Crown corporation model. Appendix 10 also includes a table which compares the features of the various models including the type of entity, its governance and accountability framework, sources of funding and the degree of autonomy from government.

Ministerial Department

Ministerial departments are run by a minister who gets their authority to manage the department from a statute.^{Footnote 1549} In the current model, Sport Canada is a branch led by a director general within the Department of Canadian Heritage. This branch falls underneath the Sport, Major Events and Commemoration sector, which is led by an assistant deputy minister. Although the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages is currently responsible for the Department of Canadian Heritage’s portfolio, some of their authority related to sport has been delegated to the Secretary of State (Sport).^{Footnote 1550} Regarding, physical activity, these responsibilities were allotted to the Minister of Health.^{Footnote 1551} As we have outlined in this chapter, it is evident that the current model is ineffective.

Ministerial departmental agency

Departmental agencies operate largely within the same fiscal and human resource framework as departments. However, agencies have more autonomy in their decision making and operations, either because of the specialized skills involved in their work, or because they perform regulatory functions that must remain free of political influence.

In general, such organizations are created by legislation that set out their mandate, authorities, and organizational structure.^{Footnote 1552} Some agencies are structured on a corporate model in which decision-making powers are vested in a board or commission.^{Footnote 1553} Examples of departmental agencies include the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Crown corporation

Crown corporations are not-for-profit government organizations created by federal legislation. Although they operate at arm’s length from the government,^{Footnote 1554} they remain accountable to the government. Crown corporations focus on the delivery of services and operational matters.^{Footnote 1555}

While most crown corporations operate in an industrial, commercial, or financial environment, some have a public policy mandate.^{Footnote 1556} Some crown corporations are almost completely funded by the government while others, generally those with a commercial orientation, tend to be self-sufficient or profit making.^{Footnote 1557} Crown corporations therefore tend to have more flexibility in financial and management matters compared to other government bodies, although they are generally still subject to the government’s human resource and administrative policies.^{Footnote 1558}

The legislation that creates a crown corporation provides the policy, operational framework, and the responsibilities of the minister, the board of directors, and the chief executive officer.^{Footnote 1559} (Each crown corporation is assigned a responsible minister who represents the corporation in Parliament and ensures accountability.)^{Footnote 1560} Furthermore, the mandate, and therefore the policy direction of the corporation, can be modified as required via legislative amendment. Examples of crown corporations include the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Telefilm Canada, and the Canada Council for the Arts.

While this model provides maximum decision-making autonomy from government, crown corporations remain accountable to Parliament for the conduct of their affairs by reporting to the minister assigned to oversee them. This minister has the authority to recommend the approval of the corporation’s corporate plan and budgets and is responsible for recommending potential board members to the Governor in Council.^{Footnote 1561}

Not-for-profit created by federal legislation

Created by federal legislation, these entities are governed by a board of directors whose members are appointed by Order in Council. They are accountable to Parliament through a minister, by tabling a Corporate Plan and Annual Report. They receive funds from the federal government, making them subject to the terms of their contribution agreement. They also receive funds from any contributing signatories. An example of this model is the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada established by the Physical Activity and Sport Act.^{Footnote 1562}

Not-for-profit third-party delivery organization

Another model that is sometimes used is a third-party delivery arrangement model. This approach is usually chosen when specialized knowledge specific to the program is required.

In this context, a third-party organization enters into a contribution agreement with the department and receives and disburses funds to one or multiple ultimate recipients in compliance with the contribution agreement. Under this model, the third party is created to respond to a need identified by the federal government and is accountable to the federal government department it entered into a contribution agreement with.

This model, in contrast to the others, provides more flexibility to the entity in terms of determining its mandate. It also allows for collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, who could be parties to the contribution agreement. In such cases, the corporation would be accountable to all interested parties to the contribution agreement. Examples of this model include the National Sport Organizations funded through Sport Canada’s Sport Support Program, as well as other entities like the Canada Media Fund.

The Commission’s chosen model: the Crown corporation

Of all of these models, we are of the view that the crown corporation is the optimal option for the Centralized Sport Entity. This model will provide a stable existence and funding, operational autonomy and independence from government, as well as the ability to execute the required functions to carry out its mandate. A crown corporation would strike an appropriate balance between having governmental support but also maintaining sufficient distance from political pressures, which, as noted earlier in this chapter, may impact operational efficiencies. It would also maintain a line of accountability to the Government of Canada. An added benefit of the crown corporation model is the possibility to explore new sources of revenue as the scope and mandate of the Centralized Sport Entity evolves.

First, it should be noted that the four other models have certain shortcomings. Thus, as we outlined earlier in this chapter, the current model where sport sits within the ministerial department and physical activity reside within the Public Health Agency of Canada has proven ineffective. Although a departmental agency has a higher degree of independence than a ministerial department, it still operates within the public administration. As a result, the level of political influence remains present. A not-for-profit third-party delivery organization, which would receive government funding to achieve outcomes outlined in a contribution agreement, could raise concerns about consistent and stable funding. The situation that many National Sport Organizations find themselves in serves as an example of this instability. A not-for-profit created by legislation would provide the greatest independence from government, as it would be legally independent and would operate outside the government structure. As a result, although it would be publicly funded, the accountability framework would be limited.

Second, in considering these options, the Commission is of the view that it is important to find the right balance between ensuring autonomy and independence for decision making on sport-specific issues, while also accounting for ministerial direction and accountability of the Entity.

The Commission is of the view that a crown corporation provides both autonomy and independence from government and reduces the impact of political interference and pressures in the decision-making process but retains a line of accountability to the Government of Canada. Such a model would also provide predictability in terms of funding. Another advantage is that it would be more difficult for changes to the funding to occur given that the Entity would be created through federal legislation. To provide even further balance between autonomy and independence from government in decision-making powers, the enabling legislation should clearly define the circumstances in which the minister responsible for the Entity can intervene.

Third, it is worth noting that the crown corporation as the legal structure for a Centralized Sport Entity is not a novel idea — this was the approach that both Australia and New Zealand adopted, for example. For instance, the Australian Sports Commission is a Government Commonwealth Corporate Entity and Sport New Zealand is a Crown Entity.

The Commission also draws attention to the Canada Council for the Arts, a Crown Corporation known as Canada’s national arts funder, which offers a broad range of grants to Canadian artists and arts organizations.^{Footnote 1563} The Canada Council for the Arts was created following a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences led by the Right Honourable Vincent Massey.^{Footnote 1564} A parallel to sport can be drawn from the recommendation resulting from the Massey Commission because, like sport, culture is not a matter of exclusive responsibility noted in the Constitution. In creating the Canada Council for the Arts, the federal government ascertained its role in the context of culture and arts. This entity was established to function in parallel to provincial and territorial structures relating to culture and arts.

Finally, to further support meaningful change, the Centralized Sport Entity’s board of directors should be grounded in expertise and impartiality. The Commission is of the view that the governance standards required of sport organizations (as outlined in Chapter 14) should also apply to the Centralized Sport Entity. Further, to ensure the independence, credibility, and capacity for objective oversight, the Commission is of the view that the new Entity’s board of directors should be composed of individuals with the required expertise to implement and oversee the Entity’s mandate.

The individuals forming the board of directors overseeing the Centralized Sport Entity should bring fresh, unbiased perspectives, in order to restore trust, drive reform, and safeguard the integrity of the Entity’s mandate.

It is important that the board include individuals with demonstrated expertise in governance, administration, and leadership. Board members should also possess a sensitivity to the needs and circumstances of the sport and physical activity community. This should include but not be limited to safeguarding and protecting vulnerable populations. In addition, to foster trust and credibility, appointments to the board of directors should be guided by the principles of independence, integrity, and the absence of any conflicts of interest.

A phased approach to creating the Centralized Sport Entity

As functions and responsibilities are transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity, the financial resources associated with those functions and responsibilities would also be re-allocated to it. To be clear, this transfer would involve the re-allocation of some of the existing funds already managed by Sport Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada as it relates to their functions within the Physical Activity and Sport Act, using Vote 5 (Grants and Contributions envelope) and Vote 1 (the associated administrative cost allocation).^{Footnote 1565}

While the overall transfer would not require significant additions of new funds, since the base funding would come from the budget transfer described above, a transitional fund would need to be established to offset the initial costs related to the entity’s establishment, as is the case for any large transformational initiative. The Commission is of the view that the consolidation and re-allocation of existing resources would maximize impact and reduce duplication and redundancy.

The Commission recognizes that a crown corporation (the “Centralized Sport Entity”) will have to be created legislatively, either through new legislation or amended legislation. Its mandate, as set out here, will have to be incorporated into this enabling statute. As is the case with other crown corporations,^{Footnote 1566} the Commission recommends that the language describing the mandate, functions, and powers given to the crown corporation be broadly defined.

We recognize that the scope of the Centralized Sport Entity is broad as it aligns with both the sport and physical activity objectives of the Physical Activity and Sport Act. As such, we are of the view that steps toward the creation of the Centralized Sport Entity must be undertaken immediately. However, the implementation of its functions could be approached in two phases, starting with the functions related to sport, followed by those related to physical activity.

The first phase would focus on encouraging, promoting, and developing sport at all levels. This would involve implementing functions 1 to 7 outlined earlier that relate to the sport objectives of the Physical Activity and Sport Act. Within this first phase an incremental approach to the transfer of functions to the Centralized Sport Entity could be undertaken. Some of the functions related to sport identified in functions 1 to 7 currently reside with Sport Canada, Own the Podium, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, the Coaching Association of Canada, and the Sport Information and Research Centre respectively. As these functions would be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity, the financial resources associated with them would be redirected to the Centralized Sport Entity.

The second phase should expand the functions assigned to the Centralized Sport Entity to include functions related to improving physical activity. This would involve implementing functions 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 outlined earlier that relate to the physical activity objectives of the Physical Activity and Sport Act. These functions currently reside with the Public Health Agency of Canada. As these functions would be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity, the financial resources associated with them would be redirected to the Centralized Sport Entity.

This phased approach would allow for the Centralized Sport Entity to build success before organically expanding the scope of its functions and responsibilities.

Calls to Action

The Commission calls for the following actions to be taken:

The Government of Canada create a Crown Corporation (the “Centralized Sport Entity”), established by enabling legislation in which it provides the entity a broad mandate to encourage, promote, and develop sport and physical activity in Canada consistent with the objectives of the Physical Activity and Sport Act.
The Government of Canada adopt a phased approach to operationalize the Centralized Sport Entity starting with the implementation of functions related to the sport objectives of the Physical Activity and Sport Act followed by those related to the physical activity objectives set out in that same Act.

Footnotes

Footnote 1463

House of Commons, “Departments and Roles: 1867 — Today” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://bdp.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/Federal/areasResponsibility?permalink=21089>.

Return to footnote 1463 referrer

Footnote 1464

Government of Canada, News Release, “Minister St-Onge Announces New Measures to Improve Accountability and Foster a Safe and Sustainable Culture Change in Sport” (May 11, 2023), online: <www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2023/05/minister-st-onge-announces-new-measures-to-improve-accountability-and-foster-a-safe-and-sustainable-culture-change-in-sport.html>.

Return to footnote 1464 referrer

Footnote 1465

Parliament of Australia, “Infosheet 20 — The Australian system of government” (last visited May 30, 2025), online: <www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_‌‌Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/00_-_Infosheets/Infosheet_20_-_The_Australian_system_of_government>.

Return to footnote 1465 referrer

Footnote 1466

Parliamentary Education Office, “Three levels of government: governing Australia” (last visited May 30, 2025), online: <https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/three-levels-of-government/three-levels-of-government-governing-australia>.

Return to footnote 1466 referrer

Footnote 1467

Project Play Aspen Institute “Australia World’s Leading Sport Systems” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://projectplay.org/world-sport-systems/australia#:~:text=The%20Australian%20Government%E2%80%99s%20Ministry%20of%20Sport%2C%20housed%20in,the%20primary%20entity%20responsible%20for%20guiding%20sport%20development>.

Return to footnote 1467 referrer

Footnote 1468

Australian Government—Australian Sports Commission, “Our organisation” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://www.ausport.gov.au/our-organisation>.

Return to footnote 1468 referrer

Footnote 1469

Australian Government—Australian Sports Commission, “Play Well” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.ausport.gov.au/playwell>.

Return to footnote 1469 referrer

Footnote 1470

Australian Government—Australian Sports Commission, “Win Well” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.winwell2032.au/>.

Return to footnote 1470 referrer

Footnote 1471

Australian Government - Australian Sports Commission, “Our organisation” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://www.ausport.gov.au/our-organisation>; Australian Government - Australian Sports Commission, Annual Report 2023-24 (September 26, 2024), online (pdf): <https://www.transparency.gov.au/publications/health/australian-sports-commission-australian-institute-of-sport/australian-sports-commission-annual-report-2023-24>.

Return to footnote 1471 referrer

Footnote 1472

Australian Sports Commission Act 1989, No 12, ss 7,9, online: <www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03760/latest/text>.

Return to footnote 1472 referrer

Footnote 1473

Clearinghouse for Sport, “Structure of Australian Sport” (last modified August 21, 2025) at National Institute Network (NIN), online: <https://www.ausport.gov.au/clearinghouse/evidence/structure-of-australian-sport>; Australian Government—Australian Sports Commission, “Our Organisation” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://www.ausport.gov.au/our-organisation>.

Return to footnote 1473 referrer

Footnote 1474

Australian Government—Australian Sports Commission, “Our Organisation” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://www.ausport.gov.au/our-organisation>.

Return to footnote 1474 referrer

Footnote 1475

Australian Sports Commission Act 1989, No 12, online: <www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03760/latest/text>; Australian Government—Australian Sports Commission, “Our Organisation” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://www.ausport.gov.au/our-organisation>.

Return to footnote 1475 referrer

Footnote 1476

Australian Government Department of Finance, “Corporate Commonwealth entity (CCE)” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.finance.gov.au/about-us/glossary/pgpa/term-corporate-commonwealth-entity-cce>; Australian Sports Commission Act 1989, No 12, s 11, online: <www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A03760/latest/text>.

Return to footnote 1476 referrer

Footnote 1477

Australian Government—Australian Sports Commission, “Our Organisation” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://www.ausport.gov.au/our-organisation>.

Return to footnote 1477 referrer

Footnote 1478

Australian Government—Australian Sports Commission, “Our Organisation” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://www.ausport.gov.au/our-organisation>.

Return to footnote 1478 referrer

Footnote 1479

Australian Government Department of Finance, “Corporate Commonwealth entity (CCE)” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.finance.gov.au/about-us/glossary/pgpa/term-corporate-commonwealth-entity-cce>; Government of Australia, Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, online:<https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2013A00123/2017-08-23/2017-08-23/text/1/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html>.

Return to footnote 1479 referrer

Footnote 1480

We describe Sport Integrity Australia and the National Sports Tribunal in Chapter 10 (Safe sport complaint mechanisms: responding to maltreatment and supporting those affected).

Return to footnote 1480 referrer

Footnote 1481

That is, the constitution is not consolidated into one formal written document but spread across multiple sources (Ulric M. Spencer & Peter Kellner, “United Kingdom” (last modified January 5, 2026) at Government and society, online: <https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Trade>).

Return to footnote 1481 referrer

Footnote 1482

Return to footnote 1482 referrer

Footnote 1483

Return to footnote 1483 referrer

Footnote 1484

UK, House of Commons Library, Reserved matters in the United Kingdom (research briefing) by David Torrance (June 20, 2022), online (pdf): <https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8544/CBP-8544.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1484 referrer

Footnote 1485

UK, House of Commons Library, Introduction to devolution in the United Kingdom (research briefing) by David Torrance (May 21, 2024), online (pdf): <https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8599/CBP-8599.pdf>; Ulric M. Spencer & Peter Kellner, “United Kingdom” (last modified January 5, 2026) at Government and society, online: <https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Local-government>.

Return to footnote 1485 referrer

Footnote 1486

Ulric M. Spencer & Peter Kellner, “United Kingdom” (last modified January 5, 2026) at Local government, online: <http://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Local-government>.

Return to footnote 1486 referrer

Footnote 1487

Project Play Aspen Institute, “United Kingdom World’s Leading Sport systems” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://projectplay.org/world-sport-systems/united-kingdom>.

Return to footnote 1487 referrer

Footnote 1488

UK Sport, “Our Funders” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.uksport.gov.uk/about-us/our-funders>.

Return to footnote 1488 referrer

Footnote 1489

GOV.UK, “UK Sport” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-sport>.

Return to footnote 1489 referrer

Footnote 1490

GOV.UK, “About Us—UK Sport” (last visited January 2026), online: <www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-sport/about>.

Return to footnote 1490 referrer

Footnote 1491

UK Sport, “Our Funders” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.uksport.gov.uk/about-us/our-funders>.

Return to footnote 1491 referrer

Footnote 1492

UK Sport, “Our Work” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work>.

Return to footnote 1492 referrer

Footnote 1493

Project Play Aspen Institute, “United Kingdom World’s Leading Sport systems” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://projectplay.org/world-sport-systems/united-kingdom>.

Return to footnote 1493 referrer

Footnote 1494

UK sport, “Power Success Inspiring Impact: UK Sport’s Strategic Plan 2021-2031” (2021), online: <https://www.uksport.gov.uk/about-us/strategic-plan>.

Return to footnote 1494 referrer

Footnote 1495

UK Sport, “Para Performance Framework: 2023-2033” (2023), online: <https://stories.uksport.gov.uk/para-performance-framework/#:~:text=A%20framework%20by%20the%20Para%20sport%20community%20for%20the%20community&text=The%20development%20of%20the%20framework,sports%2C%20multiple%20stakeholders%20and%20athletes.>.

Return to footnote 1495 referrer

Footnote 1496

GOV.UK, “About Us—UK Sport” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-sport/about>.

Return to footnote 1496 referrer

Footnote 1497

Sport England, “About Us” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.sportengland.org/about-us#whoweare-12165>; Sport Wales, “What is Sport Wales?” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.sport.wales/what-is-sport-wales/>; Sport Scotland, “Who we are”(last modified June 10, 2024), online: <https://sportscotland.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are>; Sport Northern Ireland, “About Us” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.sportni.net/about-us/>.

Return to footnote 1497 referrer

Footnote 1498

Commonwealth Sport, “Northern Ireland” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.commonwealthsport.com/nations/northern-ireland>; Commonwealth Sport, “Scotland” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.commonwealthsport.com/nations/scotland>; Commonwealth Sport, “Northern Ireland” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.commonwealthsport.com/nations/northern-ireland>; Commonwealth Sport, “Scotland” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.commonwealthsport.com/nations/scotland>; Commonwealth Sport, “Wales” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.commonwealthsport.com/nations/wales>; Commonwealth Sport, “England” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.commonwealthsport.com/nations/england>.

Return to footnote 1498 referrer

Footnote 1499

New Zealand Parliament Pāremata Aotearoa, “Our system of government” (January 20, 2016), online: <https://www3.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/our-system-of-government/>.

Return to footnote 1499 referrer

Footnote 1500

Vote Aukland, “Te rerekētanga o te kāwanatanga ā-rohe i te kāwanatanga ā-motu The difference between local and central government” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://voteauckland.co.nz/en/understanding-auckland-council-local-government/difference-between-local-central-government.html>.

Return to footnote 1500 referrer

Footnote 1501

Return to footnote 1501 referrer

Footnote 1502

John Wilson, “Nation and Government – Local Government, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand” (last modified September 1, 2016), online: <https://teara.govt.nz/en/nation-and-government/page-8>; Mark Derby, “Local and regional government – Local government in the 2000s, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://teara.govt.nz/en/local-and-regional-government/page-1>.

Return to footnote 1502 referrer

Footnote 1503

Sport New Zealand Ihi Aotearoa, “Who we are and what we do” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://sportnz.org.nz/about/who-we-are/>.

Return to footnote 1503 referrer

Footnote 1504

Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act 2002 (NZ), 2002/95, s 7, online: <https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0038/latest/whole.html>.

Return to footnote 1504 referrer

Footnote 1505

High Performance Sport New Zealand, “About HPSNZ” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://hpsnz.org.nz/about-hpsnz/about-us/>.

Return to footnote 1505 referrer

Footnote 1506

Sport New Zealand, “Our structure” (last visited January 2026), online: <https://sportnz.org.nz/about/our-structure/>.

Return to footnote 1506 referrer

Footnote 1507

Sport New Zealand Ihi Aotearoa, Every Body Active Strategic Direction 2020-2023, Strategic Plan 2020-2024, online (pdf): <https://sportnz.org.nz/media/1160/strategy-doc-201219.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1507 referrer

Footnote 1508

High Performance Sport New Zealand, Strategic Plan 2025-2028, online (pdf): <https://cdn.hpsnz.org.nz/content/uploads/2024/10/24201402/HPSNZ-2025-2028-Strategic-Plan.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1508 referrer

Footnote 1509

Sport New Zealand, Disability Plan: Play, Active Recreation and Sport (October 2019), online (pdf): <https://sportnz.org.nz/media/1526/sport-nz-disability-plan-2019.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1509 referrer

Footnote 1510

Sport New Zealand Ihi Aotearoa, “Who we are and what we do” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://sportnz.org.nz/about/who-we-are/>.

Return to footnote 1510 referrer

Footnote 1511

Sport New Zealand Ihi Aotearoa, “Locally Led Approach” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://sportnz.org.nz/resources/locally-led-approach/>.

Return to footnote 1511 referrer

Footnote 1512

Project Play Aspen Institute, “World’s Leading Sport Systems New Zealand” (last visited June 2025), online: <https://projectplay.org/world-sport-systems/new-zealand?rq=New%20Zealand>.

Return to footnote 1512 referrer

Footnote 1513

Government of Norway, “The Government” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://www.regjeringen.no/en/the-government/id443314/>.

Return to footnote 1513 referrer

Footnote 1514

Government of Norway, “Department of Civil Society and Sports” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kud/organisation/departments/department-of-civil-society-and-sports/id2470267/>; Government of Norway, “Ministry of Culture and Equality” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kud/id545/>; Government of Norway, “Distribution of gaming funds for sporting purposes (the main distribution)” (last modified August 21, 2025), online: <https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kud/tilskudd/Distribution-of-gaming-funds-for-sporting-purposes-the-main-distribution/id764857/>.

Return to footnote 1514 referrer

Footnote 1515

Government of Norway, “Distribution of gaming funds for sporting purposes (the main distribution)” (last modified August 21, 2025), online: <https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kud/tilskudd/Distribution-of-gaming-funds-for-sporting-purposes-the-main-distribution/id764857/>.

Return to footnote 1515 referrer

Footnote 1516

See also Eivind Å Skille and Reidar Säfvenbom, “Sport Policy in Norway” (2011) 3:2 Int J Sport Policy and Politics 289, online: <https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2010.547867>.

Return to footnote 1516 referrer

Footnote 1517

Government of Norway, “The Department of Public Health” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/hod/organisation-and-management-of-the-ministry-of-health-and-care-services/Departments/The-Department-for-Public-Health/id1405/>.

Return to footnote 1517 referrer

Footnote 1518

Government of Norway, “Sports policy” (last modified August 25, 2021), online: <https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/culture-sports-and-non-profit-work/innsiktsartikler/sports-policy/id2001187/>.

Return to footnote 1518 referrer

Footnote 1519

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, “Hvem er vi?” [Who are we?] (last visited December 2025) [translated] at Historikk, online: <https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/om-nif/hvem-er-vi/>.

Return to footnote 1519 referrer

Footnote 1520

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, “Who we are” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/english/who-we-are/>.

Return to footnote 1520 referrer

Footnote 1521

Project Play Aspen Institute, “World’s Leading Sport Systems: Norway” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://projectplay.org/world-sport-systems/norway>.

Return to footnote 1521 referrer

Footnote 1522

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, “Langtidsplan for norsk idrett” [Long-term plan for Norwegian sport] (last visited November 2025) [translated], online: <https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/om-nif/langtidsplan-for-norsk-idrett/>.

Return to footnote 1522 referrer

Footnote 1523

Project Play Aspen Institute, “World’s Leading Sport Systems: Norway” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://projectplay.org/world-sport-systems/norway>; Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, “Hvem er vi?” [Who are we?] (last visited December 2025) [translated] at Historikk, online: <https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/om-nif/hvem-er-vi/>.

Return to footnote 1523 referrer

Footnote 1524

Return to footnote 1524 referrer

Footnote 1525

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, Children’s Rights in Sports: The Provisions on Children’s Sports (2019), online (pdf): <https://flippage.impleoweb.no/dokumentpartner/8a4ab125083149639ebc3b0c0c7cd0a5/82_19_Barneidrettsbestemmelsene_EN.pdf#page=1>.

Return to footnote 1525 referrer

Footnote 1526

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, Children’s Rights in Sports: The Provisions on Children’s Sports (2019) at 3-4, online (pdf): <https://flippage.impleoweb.no/dokumentpartner/8a4ab125083149639ebc3b0c0c7cd0a5/82_19_Barneidrettsbestemmelsene_EN.pdf#page=1>.

Return to footnote 1526 referrer

Footnote 1527

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, Children’s Rights in Sports: The Provisions on Children’s Sports (2019) at 5, online (pdf): <https://flippage.impleoweb.no/dokumentpartner/8a4ab125083149639ebc3b0c0c7cd0a5/82_19_Barneidrettsbestemmelsene_EN.pdf#page=1>.

Return to footnote 1527 referrer

Footnote 1528

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, Children’s Rights in Sports: The Provisions on Children’s Sports (2019) at 4, online (pdf): <https://flippage.impleoweb.no/dokumentpartner/8a4ab125083149639ebc3b0c0c7cd0a5/82_19_Barneidrettsbestemmelsene_EN.pdf#page=1>.

Return to footnote 1528 referrer

Footnote 1529

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports, Children’s Rights in Sports: The Provisions on Children’s Sports (2019) at 7, online (pdf): <https://flippage.impleoweb.no/dokumentpartner/8a4ab125083149639ebc3b0c0c7cd0a5/82_19_Barneidrettsbestemmelsene_EN.pdf#page=1>.

Return to footnote 1529 referrer

Footnote 1530

Return to footnote 1530 referrer

Footnote 1531

Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sport, One Sport — Equal Opportunities: Norwegian parasport strategy 2022-2027 (2022), online (pdf): <https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/siteassets/idrettsforbundet/internasjonal/pdf/24_22_nif_norwegian-parasport-strategy.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1531 referrer

Footnote 1532

Return to footnote 1532 referrer

Footnote 1533

Project Play Aspen Institute, “World’s Leading Sport Systems: Norway” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://projectplay.org/world-sport-systems/norway>.

Return to footnote 1533 referrer

Footnote 1534

Inge Andersen, Øyvind Sandbakk, Johann Olav Koss & The Aspen Institute, “How Norway Won All That Olympic Gold (Again)” (last visited December 2024) online (blog): <https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/how-norway-won-all-that-olympic-gold-again/>.

Return to footnote 1534 referrer

Footnote 1535

Project Play Aspen Institute, World’s Leading Sport Systems: How Governance is Structured (last visited December 2025) at 6, online (pdf): <https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/WorldSportSystemsReportFinal.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1535 referrer

Footnote 1536

Department of Canadian Heritage Act, SC 1995, c 11, s 4(2)(f), online: <www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-17.3/>.

Return to footnote 1536 referrer

Footnote 1537

Government of Canada, “The Public Health Agency of Canada 2024-25 Departmental Plan” (last modified August 20, 2024), online: <www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/transparency/corporate-management-reporting/reports-plans-priorities/2024-2025-departmental-plan.html>.

Return to footnote 1537 referrer

Footnote 1538

Government of Canada, The Public Health Agency of Canada’s 2025-26 Departmental Plan (June 2025), online (pdf): <https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2025/aspc-phac/HP2-26-2025-eng.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1538 referrer

Footnote 1539

Government of Canada, “Public Health Agency of Canada Mandate” (last modified March 21, 2025), online: <www.canada.ca/en/public-health/corporate/mandate.html>.

Return to footnote 1539 referrer

Footnote 1540

See the section called “Intergovernmental Collaboration” in Chapter 5: Roles and responsibilities in the Canadian sport system: a fragmented framework.

Return to footnote 1540 referrer

Footnote 1541

Government of Canada, “Multilateral Early Learning and Child Care Framework” (last modified 26 April 2022), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/early-learning-child-care/reports/2017-multilateral-framework.html>.

Return to footnote 1541 referrer

Footnote 1542

Government of Canada, “Early Learning and Child Care Agreements” (last modified 29 July 2025), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/early-learning-child-care-agreement/agreements-provinces-territories.html>.

Return to footnote 1542 referrer

Footnote 1543

See Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat, Foundations for Transformation (2024-25) at 16, online (pdf): <https://scics.ca/AR-2024-25/en/pdf/25-039-CISC-2024-25-Annual-Report-English_R4-WCAG.pdf>.

Return to footnote 1543 referrer

Footnote 1544

See for example Government of Canada, “Welcome Minister: Transition March 2025” (2025), online: <https://canada.justice.gc.ca/eng/trans/transition/2025/p6.html>; Government of Canada, “Finance Canada’s Transition Binder, December 2024” (December 2024) at « Federal-provincial relations », online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/corporate/transparency/transition-binders/2024/12.html>.

Return to footnote 1544 referrer

Footnote 1545

Forum of Ministers Responsible for Immigration, “About” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.fmri.ca/about>.

Return to footnote 1545 referrer

Footnote 1546

See Council for Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety, “Reports and Studies” (last visited November 2025), online: <https://www.comt.ca/Reports-e.htm>.

Return to footnote 1546 referrer

Footnote 1547

See for example, annual reports on the Disability Inclusion Action Plan: Government of Canada, “Disability Inclusion Action Plan: What We’ve Accomplished, 2024 Annual Update” (last modified 10 June 2025), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/disability-inclusion-action-plan/reports/annual-2024.html>.

Return to footnote 1547 referrer

Footnote 1548

In January 2026, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport changed its name to Sport Integrity Canada.

Return to footnote 1548 referrer

Footnote 1549

Government of Canada, “Guide Book for Heads of Agencies: Operations, Structures and Responsibilities in the Federal Government” (last modified 22 February 2018) at 1. “Departments”, online: <www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/publications/guide-book-heads-agencies-operations-structures-responsibilities-federal-government.html>.

Return to footnote 1549 referrer

Footnote 1550

Government of Canada, “Cabinet” (last visited June 2025), online: <www.pm.gc.ca/en/cabinet>; PC 2025-0470, (2025), online: <https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=47293&lang=en>.

Return to footnote 1550 referrer

Footnote 1551

PC 2025-0494, (2025), online: <https://orders-in-council.canada.ca/attachment.php?attach=47313&lang=en>.

Return to footnote 1551 referrer

Footnote 1552

Government of Canada, “Guide Book for Heads of Agencies: Operations, Structures and Responsibilities in the Federal Government” (last modified 22 February 2018) at 2. “Agencies, Boards and Commissions”, online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/publications/guide-book-heads-agencies-operations-structures-responsibilities-federal-government.html>.

Return to footnote 1552 referrer

Footnote 1553

Return to footnote 1553 referrer

Footnote 1554

Government of Canada, “Guide Book for Heads of Agencies: Operations, Structures and Responsibilities in the Federal Government” (last modified 22 February 2018) at 3. “Crown Corporations”, online: <www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/publications/guide-book-heads-agencies-operations-structures-responsibilities-federal-government.html>.

Return to footnote 1554 referrer

Footnote 1555

Return to footnote 1555 referrer

Footnote 1556

Government of Canada, “Directors of Crown corporations: an introductory guide to their roles and responsibilities” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/guidance-crown-corporations/directors-crown-corporations-introductory-guide-roles-responsibilities.html>.

Return to footnote 1556 referrer

Footnote 1557

Government of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Meeting the Expectations of Canadians: Review of the Governance Framework for Canada’s Crown Corporations (2005) at 10, online (PDF): <https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.30714329?seq=14>; Government of Canada, “Directors of Crown corporations: an introductory guide to their roles and responsibilities” (last visited December 2025), online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/guidance-crown-corporations/directors-crown-corporations-introductory-guide-roles-responsibilities.html>.

Return to footnote 1557 referrer

Footnote 1558

Government of Canada, “Guide Book for Heads of Agencies: Operations, Structures and Responsibilities in the Federal Government” (last modified February 22, 2018) at 3. “Crown Corporations”, online: <www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/publications/guide-book-heads-agencies-operations-structures-responsibilities-federal-government.html>.

Return to footnote 1558 referrer

Footnote 1559

Return to footnote 1559 referrer

Footnote 1560

Government of Canada, “Guide Book for Heads of Agencies: Operations, Structures and Responsibilities in the Federal Government” (last modified 22 February 2018) at 3. “Crown Corporations”, online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/publications/guide-book-heads-agencies-operations-structures-responsibilities-federal-government.html>.

Return to footnote 1560 referrer

Footnote 1561

Government of Canada, “Guide Book for Heads of Agencies: Operations, Structures and Responsibilities in the Federal Government” (last modified 22 February 2018) at 3. “Crown Corporations”, online: <https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/services/publications/guide-book-heads-agencies-operations-structures-responsibilities-federal-government.html>.

Return to footnote 1561 referrer

Footnote 1562

Physical Activity and Sport Act, SC 2003, c 2, s 9, online: <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-13.4/>.

Return to footnote 1562 referrer

Footnote 1563

See Canada Council for the Arts, “Grants” (last visited 13 June 2025), online: <https://canadacouncil.ca/funding/grants>.

Return to footnote 1563 referrer

Footnote 1564

Library and Archives Canada, “Report of the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts” (1951), ch XXV, par 379, online: <www.collectionscanada.ca/massey/h5-452-e.html>.

Return to footnote 1564 referrer

Footnote 1565

Each vote number represents a type of expenditure approved by Parliament.

Return to footnote 1565 referrer

Footnote 1566

See, for example, Canada Council for the Arts Act, RSC 1985, c C12, s 8(1): <https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-2/FullText.html>.

Return to footnote 1566 referrer

Page details

2026-04-15

Chapter 12: The need for new leadership of Canadian sport

On this page

Commission’s findings on the fragmented sport system and the need for leadership in Canadian sport

Sport models in other countries

Australia

United Kingdom

New Zealand

Norway

Reminder of the Commission’s preliminary recommendations

Strategic changes for strengthened vision and leadership for sport and physical activity in Canada

The need for strong and effective government leadership

Feedback on the need for strong and effective government leadership

Calls to Action: the need for strong and effective government leadership

The need for enhanced intergovernmental collaboration grounded in accountability

Feedback on the need for improved intergovernmental collaboration grounded in accountability

Call to Action: the need for enhanced intergovernmental collaboration grounded in accountability

The need for federal sport and physical activity policy upkeep and implementation

Feedback on the need for federal sport and physical activity policy upkeep and implementation

Calls to Action: the need for federal sport and physical activity policy upkeep and implementation

Developing and renewing policies

Disability sport strategy

Equity, diversity, inclusion, and access strategies

High-performance and broad sport and physical activity participation strategy

Evidenced-based and inclusive policy development

Implementing and monitoring policies

The need for a centralized, coordinated, and united approach to sport and physical activity in Canada and a Centralized Sport Entity

Feedback on the need for a centralized, coordinated, and united approach to sport and physical activity in Canada and on the Centralized Sport Entity

Factors and considerations for a Centralized Sport Entity

Suggestions on the scope of the Centralized Sport Entity

Calls to Action: the need for a centralized, coordinated, and united approach to sport and physical activity in Canada and on the Centralized Sport Entity

Centralized Sport Entity: mandate, key functions and responsibilities

Centralized Sport Entity: the appropriate structure

Ministerial Department

Ministerial departmental agency

Crown corporation

Not-for-profit created by federal legislation

Not-for-profit third-party delivery organization

The Commission’s chosen model: the Crown corporation

A phased approach to creating the Centralized Sport Entity

Page details