Chapter 14: Sport governance: from inconsistent to transparent and harmonized

On this page

• Commission’s findings on the urgent need for sport governance prioritization in Canada
• Sport governance and existing frameworks
  • Current governance framework at the national level
    • Legislation on governance standards
    • Generally accepted best practices for good governance
    • Sport governance policies and frameworks
    • Reports and studies on governance in the sport system
  • Current governance frameworks at the provincial and territorial level
    • Legislation on governance standards
    • Policies on governance standards
  • Governance principles and frameworks developed by international groups and other countries
    • International Olympic Committee
    • Council of Europe
    • New Zealand
    • United Kingdom
    • Wales
    • Australia
    • Netherlands
• Reminder of the Commission’s preliminary recommendations
• A mandatory and harmonized approach to sport governance grounded in accountability
  • The need for mandatory sport governance standards
    • Participants’ perspectives on mandatory sport governance standards
    • Calls to Action: mandatory sport governance standards
  • The need to regularly review governance standards and enhance governance standards
    • The need to regularly review governance standards
    • The need to enhance governance standards
    • Calls to Action: regular review of governance standards and enhanced standards
  • The need for sport governance standards oversight
    • Participants’ perspectives on sport governance standards oversight
    • Calls to Action: sport governance standards oversight
  • The need for a harmonized approach to governance standards at all levels of sport
    • Option 1: Using spending power to implement uniform governance standards
    • Option 2: Collaborating to establish uniform governance standards
    • Calls to Action: a harmonized approach to governance standards

In this chapter, we begin by outlining the Commission’s findings which illustrate the urgent need for the prioritization of sport governance in Canada. We then provide an overview of the sport governance frameworks that exist in Canada at both the national and provincial and territorial levels of sport and explore the approaches to sport governance undertaken by international groups and other countries. Subsequently, we provide a reminder of the Commission’s preliminary recommendations before identifying the Commission’s recommended steps to strengthening and prioritizing sport governance in Canada. Throughout the chapter, we also outline the feedback received on the Commission’s preliminary recommendations, including comments provided during the National Summit and other engagement activities organized by the Commission. We then present our final conclusions and Calls to Action.

Commission’s findings on the urgent need for sport governance prioritization in Canada

Many of the issues that led to the Commission’s creation reflect a fundamental failure of the governance structures in the sport system. These shortcomings have often been attributed to the root cause of the safe sport crisis in Canada.

Governance deficiencies affect all sport organizations, whether not-for-profit or private. This includes National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, and community sport groups, clubs, and leagues. While some organizations, mainly at the national level, have attempted to address governance issues, the problems persist.

Many National and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations are complex entities. Some manage significant budgets that include public funding. Sport organizations also tend to rely heavily on volunteers in various roles, including as board members. These volunteers are often former athletes, parents of athletes, or sport officials without any governance experience or expertise.

They typically have insufficient understanding of the complex needs of children and youth in vulnerable situations and have limited awareness of the approaches necessary to address allegations of maltreatment and abuse within their organizations. Volunteers play a critical role in the sport system and make an incalculable ‘’in-kind’’ financial contribution. However, they often do not have the expertise, skills, and training to make effective decisions, especially when dealing with increasingly complex issues within sport organizations. Furthermore, participants reported that the same individuals are frequently re-appointed to boards of directors resulting in the perpetuation of the ongoing issues.

In the current system, governance requirements for sport organizations are limited and inconsistent. As not-for-profit corporations, they must adhere to the requirements of either federal, provincial, or territorial not-for-profit corporation legislation. However, this legislation provides only basic statutory requirements with respect to governance, such as key duties for directors, and the duties and rights of members. As funders, governments can set governance guidelines. These guidelines can stand alone or be included as conditions in funding agreements with sport organizations.

We learned that there is a lack of consistency surrounding approaches to governance and little to no effective monitoring of compliance with the governance rules that do exist. Some participants described current oversight as a compliance exercise requiring sport organizations to self-report their compliance rather than being subject to regular independent audits and examinations conducted by governance experts.

A further challenge to appropriate governance and oversight in the sport system is the growth of private clubs, leagues, and organizations. Unfortunately, these entities fall outside the traditional sport system and are beyond the reach of National and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. As private entities incorporated under either federal, provincial, or territorial not-for-profit or for-profit incorporation legislation, they also lack guidance on sport governance standards.

As a result, we are left with a sport system where poor governance practices, limited governance requirements, and very little oversight have led to the mishandling of abuse, maltreatment, and safe sport complaints.

Sport governance and existing frameworks

As the 2022 Final Report: Hockey Canada Governance Review by the Honourable Thomas Cromwell reminds us, the term governance has many definitions. It “generally describes the best practices and procedures used by the leaders of an organization to allocate authority and oversight responsibility for decision-making and operational activities.”^{Footnote 1594} Governance is influenced by various factors, including the organization’s mission and purpose, applicable legislative and regulatory requirements, and policies and standards.

Good governance practices are common in most Canadian settings. These practices are reinforced through highly regarded institutions like the Institute of Corporate Directors. However, these recognized practices are not consistently reflected in the sport sector which appears to operate under obsolete standards.

Current governance framework at the national level

Legislation on governance standards

While the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act is the governing legislation for all federally funded National Sport Organizations, it provides only a broad foundation for sport organizations’ governance. The Physical Activity and Sport Act offers no governance guidance.

Because the legislated governance requirements are rudimentary, sport organizations must look beyond these laws to find guidance on governance.

Generally accepted best practices for good governance

The Guide to Good Governance outlines the generally accepted best practices for not-for-profit organizations.^{Footnote 1595} The Honourable Thomas Cromwell referred to this guide in his Final Report: Hockey Canada Governance Review. Other governance experts have also referenced it. It provides specific and practical guidelines tailored to help not-for-profit organizations implement governance practices. It also emphasizes the fundamental principles of transparency, accountability, integrity and impartiality, fairness, and responsibility.

Another source of governance best practices can be found in federal policies and frameworks.

Sport governance policies and frameworks

The Canadian Sport Governance Code and the Sport Integrity Framework

In February 2020, following the work of the 2019 Canadian High Performance Strategy action plan, a working group led by the Canadian Olympic Committee was formed to review other countries’ governance codes. It also researched best practices in sport governance and discussed the approach to drafting a Canadian sport governance code and for identifying best practices for inclusion in it.

Broad engagement efforts were made by the working group to elaborate and develop a governance Code.^{Footnote 1596} For example, it held a series of meetings with National Sport Organizations to seek their feedback and input.^{Footnote 1597} At the conclusion of this process the Canadian Sport Governance Code was released online in April 2021.^{Footnote 1598}

To support its implementation, the Canadian Olympic Committee also prepared the Good Governance Framework,^{Footnote 1599} which connected the principles of the Code to the Sport Canada Governance Report Card. This report card has since been discontinued but will be discussed in the next section.

The Canadian Sport Governance Code aims to enhance governance practices within National Sport Organizations and improve accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct in Canadian sport. It is the Commission’s understanding that the Code was structured to apply to all National Sports Organizations representing sports on the Olympic program as a first step to harmonizing governance practices. A statement in the Code encourages all other National Sport Organizations to adopt its governance requirements.^{Footnote 1600}

The Canadian Sport Governance Code provides alternative standards for National Sport Organizations with fewer than four full-time employees. These alternative standards are set out in italics in certain provisions of the Code. The Code further provides that although such National Sport Organizations have the option to adhere to the alternative standard, they are encouraged to comply fully with all of the provisions of the Code.^{Footnote 1601} All National Sport Organizations covered by the Code are governed by the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.^{Footnote 1602}

In May 2023, the then Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec announced that all federally funded National Sport Organizations would be required to adopt the Canadian Sport Governance Code and make the corresponding changes to their governance structures by April 2025 to receive federal funding.^{Footnote 1603} All other funded organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes were encouraged to adopt the Code’s principles.

Consequently, many National Sport Organizations began making necessary changes to comply with the Code by April 1, 2025.

In July 2023, a new Minister of Sport and Physical Activity was appointed. On December 11, 2023, the new minister announced the creation of the Future of Sport in Canada Commission and a series of immediate actions to improve sport integrity and safe sport approaches.^{Footnote 1604} One of the actions was the modernization of the funding and accountability framework.^{Footnote 1605}

In November 2024, Sport Canada released the Sport Integrity Framework along with a revised set of guidelines. This Framework indicates that “good governance principles” would be integrated into existing accountability mechanisms for federally funded organizations.^{Footnote 1606} The Framework further specifies that instead of requiring organizations to sign on to a stand-alone governance code, the new funding model would require the adoption of five mandatory governance elements.^{Footnote 1607} This meant that the Canadian Sport Governance Code would not be mandatory for federally funded National Sports Organizations. The framework however noted that the Canadian Sport Governance Code remains a source of established best practices in sport organization governance.^{Footnote 1608}

This shift caused frustration among some National Sport Organizations. Several had invested resources and used their influence to convince their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations to amend their bylaws to comply with the Code. These organizations were then left to explain the rationale for the shift in requirements to their members.

Since April 2025, federally funded National Sport Organizations must comply with the five fundamental governance requirements.^{Footnote 1609} These requirements are part of the evaluation criteria for their eligibility for the Sport Support Program.^{Footnote 1610} Federally funded National Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres have an additional year, until April 2026, to meet the same requirements.^{Footnote 1611}

The five fundamental governance requirements are:

1. A business plan/strategy that provides mission/mandate, vision, values, objectives, roles and responsibilities of the board and management, performance indicators, etc.
2. A board of directors that includes:

• Diversity: processes in place to support representation among board members of a broad spectrum of identities and experiences within the community that it serves or seeks to engage
• Athletes’ voice: a transparent and inclusive process for selecting an athlete representative on its board of directors
• Board orientation and training: processes in place to provide orientation and training for new and/or re-elected members on the fundamentals of good governance and board responsibilities
• Oversight committees: establishment and maintenance, complete with board-approved terms of reference, of oversight committees.
  3. Internal controls established for financial controls and ongoing risk management
  4. Organizational transparency measures in place to share governance-related documents on its website, so that they are readily available and accessible to the public
  5. Discipline and appeal policies and procedures are in place that include access to independent dispute resolution through the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.^{Footnote 1612}

Requirements 1 to 4 noted above are reflected in the Canadian Sport Governance Code.

The Sport Support Program further specifies that when a sport organization receives support under this program, it must adopt governance practices that advance transparency, accountability, and responsibility in the activities it undertakes. However, there is no additional guidance on what these governance practices should be.^{Footnote 1613}

Details on Sport Canada funding programs, processes, eligibility criteria, and evaluation criteria are discussed in Chapter 15.

The Sport Canada Governance Report Card (discontinued)

In 2019, Sport Canada developed the Sport Canada Governance Report Card as an oversight mechanism under the Sport Funding and Accountability Framework. It was meant to assess how the activities of federally funded sport organizations aligned with government priorities.

The first phase of the Report Card, issued in 2019, evaluated progress on measures to promote sport integrity, diversity and inclusion, and communication and engagement.^{Footnote 1614} The second phase, issued in 2021, focused on good governance principles.^{Footnote 1615} Organizations were required to demonstrate compliance, and then received numeric scores and feedback on areas for improvement.^{Footnote 1616}

The Report Card was intended to guide best practices and influence resource allocation by encouraging sport organizations to use their results to prepare future funding applications to Sport Canada.^{Footnote 1617} However, the Report Card was suspended after concerns emerged that it had given high ratings to organizations that were later found to have significant governance and integrity issues.^{Footnote 1618}

Some participants told us that the Governance Report Card demonstrated the lack of capacity within Sport Canada to competently administer a governance-compliance oversight mechanism. Some even remarked that given its lack of governance expertise, Sport Canada is not equipped to assess whether an organization complies with a governance criterion. As a result, reliance is given to the sport organization’s own assessment of whether it is complying with the standards based on documents provided by the organization.

Project Risk Assessment and Management Tool

Sport Canada uses the Project Risk Assessment and Management Tool, a standardized departmental tool to assess applicants’ risk level before granting funding. Using this risk-assessment tool, Sport Canada considers a number of factors, such as successful completion of previously funded projects, communication with the Department, daily operations, and the presence of good governance procedures.

The Project Risk Assessment and Management Tool examines the following criteria:

• the external environment which includes characteristics that may have an influence on the applicant’s activity. This includes whether they have consistent governance practices
• the applicant’s risk which considers whether they have previously received funding
• the complexity and magnitude of the applicant’s activities and projects.

The risk assessment determines what, if any, conditions will be added to the contribution agreement intended to mitigate the identified risks. For example, if an application is assessed as higher risk, their contribution agreement might involve distributing funding through additional payments. It could also include additional reporting requirements, risk-mitigation strategies, and outline specific monitoring activities that must be undertaken.

While this risk-assessment tool is standardized and used at the Department of Canadian Heritage for all its funding recipients, it is our understanding that it is not tailored specifically to assess Sport Canada’s funding recipients. For example, while good governance practices are one of the assessed factors, the purpose of this tool is not to provide a thorough objective and subjective assessment of a sport organization’s implementation of good governance practices. It is our understanding that this tool relies on the information that sport organizations share or self-report to Sport Canada, rather than an audit-style verification, to assess the risk level before funding is granted.

Reports and studies on governance in the sport system

In 2022, a number of important reports and studies focused on governance issues within three federally funded National Sport Organizations: Canada Soccer, Hockey Canada, and Gymnastics Canada. The 2022 reports by McLaren Global Sport Solutions on Canada Soccer,^{Footnote 1619} Justice Thomas Cromwell’s Governance Review of Hockey Canada,^{Footnote 1620} and McLaren Global Sport Solutions’ report to Gymnastics Canada^{Footnote 1621} each offer thoughtful and detailed recommendations about sport governance.

Some of these studies’ recommendations were echoed in reports of the two House of Commons Standing Committees that undertook studies related to safe sport. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women tabled a report entitled “Towards Creating a Safe Sport Environment for All Athletes in Canada”^{Footnote 1622} in 2023, and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage tabled a report entitled “Safe Sport in Canada” in 2024.^{Footnote 1623} Several recommendations across these reports reiterated the importance of good governance principles. They encourage compliance with these principles by urging the adoption of clear statements and the development and adoption of processes and procedures addressing several governance-related responsibilities.

For example, the Cromwell Report recommended that boards of directors adopt statements to clarify their roles and responsibilities, adopt a specific governance model, and adopt a statement clarifying management’s role.^{Footnote 1624} The Cromwell Report also recommends that boards establish processes and procedures addressing a number of factors, such as staggering board members’ terms, an annual board review, the recruitment of board chairs, and the management of board meetings.^{Footnote 1625} Similar practices are recommended in the Guide to Good Governance.^{Footnote 1626}

Further, the Cromwell Report and both standing committee reports raised the importance of meaningful representation of athletes within sport organizations’ governance structures and decision-making processes.

Finally, these reports and studies highlighted the need for openness and transparency about the use of any public funds.

Current governance frameworks at the provincial and territorial level

Legislation on governance standards

The governing legislation for Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations is either the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act or its provincial or territorial equivalent. Some provincial and territorial governments specify under which legislation the entity must be incorporated to be eligible to receive funding, while others are silent on this point or leave it to the sport organization’s discretion.

Similar to federal legislation for not-for-profit incorporation, provincial and territorial legislative frameworks typically provide a broad governance foundation framework for sport organizations.

However, some provinces and territories go beyond this. For instance, Yukon has legislatively imposed governance requirements on its Territorial Sport Organizations as a condition for funding through the Recreation Regulations^{Footnote 1627} made under the Recreation Act.^{Footnote 1628} Section 5 sets out the mandatory criteria the Territorial Sport Organizations must comply with to be eligible for territorial funding. They must:

• have a volunteer leadership structure that is democratically elected by the membership at an annual general meeting
• have and make available to the public a written constitution, bylaws and objects
• be incorporated under the Yukon’s Societies Act and be in good standing
• produce annual financial statements (to be audited if the Sport and Recreation Branch of the Department of Community and Transportation Services requests it)
• have a multi-year plan ratified by its board of directors.^{Footnote 1629}

We also note that in New Brunswick, the Youth Assistance Act empowers the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the conditions under which financial assistance is given to amateur sport bodies.^{Footnote 1630} However, as of the date of writing this report we have not identified any regulations enacted under this Act.

Policies on governance standards

Some provinces and territories impose governance requirements on their Provincial or Territorial Sport Organizations that go beyond those in the applicable not-for-profit legislation. They use policy, rather than legislative intervention, where compliance is required for funding eligibility. Below we provide three examples.

Governance requirements in Ontario

Provincial and multisport organizations in Ontario must meet governance requirements to be recognized under the Sport Recognition Policy for Provincial and Multisport organizations. This recognition then allows them to apply for provincial core funding under the Ontario Amateur Sport Fund.^{Footnote 1631} Several requirements must be met to receive this recognition. Under this policy, relevant to sport governance, the sport organization must:

• be a registered not-for-profit organization under the Ontario’s Corporations Act or the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010
• have a board of directors elected by its members and residents of Ontario
• have effective governance structures in place and demonstrate it has the organizational capacity to provide programs and services to its members provincewide. The organization must:
  • have bylaws and operational and financial policies
  • have a multi-year strategic plan that includes a vision statement/mandate, strategic directions, overview of current and future programs and activities, and risks and mitigation strategies
  • submit budget and financial review engagement reports or audits
  • carry insurance
  • hold an annual general meeting. Notice about the meeting must be posted on the organization’s website along with an agenda and any other relevant documents
• post the following material on their website: the elected board of directors, bylaws, operational and financial procedures, policies, and minutes or summaries of their annual general meeting.^{Footnote 1632}

Governance requirements in British Columbia

Similarly, in British Columbia, viaSport’s Designation Program aims to ensure that provincial and multisport organizations uphold standards in a number of areas, including governance.^{Footnote 1633} There are three designation categories under this program. Each one aligns to specific minimum standards that consider the sport’s size and reach as well as the maturity of the organization.^{Footnote 1634} Only organizations with the accredited designation are eligible for annual funding.^{Footnote 1635}

The minimum standards required for obtaining and maintaining a designation are outlined in the viaSport Designation Program Policy.^{Footnote 1636} According to the policy’s governance requirements, the sport organization must:

• be a registered not-for-profit in good standing with the BC Societies Act
• have a constitution and bylaws that define the organization’s governance structure and at a minimum address the following:
  • organizational purpose
  • size and composition of the board
  • procedures for election of directors and corresponding terms
  • roles and duties of directors and officers
  • procedures for meetings of directors and meetings of the members
  • membership categories and voting rights
  • financial management
• have an approved multi-year strategic plan
• have annual approved operating budgets and prepare financial statements each fiscal year. The need for audited statements is determined based on the organization’s annual revenue.
• carry a minimum of $2,000,000 in general liability insurance
• maintain a suite of board-approved policies, including Code of Conduct, Discipline and Complaints, Dispute Resolution and Appeals, Criminal Record Check and Screening, Conflict of Interest, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Access, Employee or Human Resources, Privacy, Fair Play and Anti-Doping, and Provincial Team Selection
• post on a publicly available website the following information that is easily accessible: organization name and purpose, current board of directors, bylaws, policies, rules and regulations, minutes or annual report from the recent annual general meeting, annual financial statements, and a safe sport page.^{Footnote 1637}

Compliance with the standards is evaluated through a formal self-assessment process.^{Footnote 1638} The organization also has to complete an annual report to confirm that they continue to meet the designation criteria and obligations.^{Footnote 1639} If an organization fails to demonstrate that they are meeting the prescribed standards, it may be placed on probation and given a timeline to remedy the situation.^{Footnote 1640} Where an organization is not able to comply with the standards, their designation may be reclassified or removed. Where the designation is removed, it results in the automatic termination of the funding.^{Footnote 1641}

Quebec Governance Code

Quebec is the only province that has developed a governance code specifically tailored for not-for-profit sport and leisure organizations: the Code de gouvernance des organismes à but non lucratif (OBNL) québécois de sport et de loisir (the governance code for Quebec non-profit sport and recreation organizations), implemented in May 2020. We understand that a revised version of this Code was published in August 2025.^{Footnote 1642}

Recognizing that one size does not fit all, Quebec’s Code outlines three levels of governance requirements: minimum, medium, and high.^{Footnote 1643} An organization’s recurring funding and recurring annual operating budget are some of the indicators used to determine its level of governance requirements.^{Footnote 1644}

This Code is detailed and includes 14 governance requirement categories.^{Footnote 1645} Each one lists specific actions for an organization to comply with the requirement. These actions vary on the level of requirement of the sport organization.

We provide below an overview of the categories and what corresponding actions are required:

1. Letters patent and annual declaration to the Registre des entreprises du Québec: The board must ensure that incorporation documents are valid and that an annual declaration is filed to maintain legal status.

2. Annual general meeting: The board must hold an annual general meeting and present the organization’s activities and financial reports.

3. Voting members: The general bylaws must clearly define the voting membership and that directors should be elected by the membership.

4. General bylaws: The general bylaws must be regularly revised and kept up to date. Letters patent, bylaws, and policies must be circulated to all new directors.

5. Ethics and professional conduct of directors: The board must adopt, implement, and comply with a code of ethics and professional conduct that addresses board solidarity, confidentiality of information, management of conflicts of interest, duty of prudence and diligence, directors’ commitment, and annual declaration of interest.

6. Directors’ election and term of office: The general bylaws must describe director eligibility, nomination requirements, the election process, and the establishment of an election committee. The general bylaws must stipulate that the board of directors must annually draw up a profile of the complementary skills it needs to achieve its objectives.

Regarding the composition of the board, the bylaws must define that a minimum number of directors are deemed to be independent and identify a maximum number of the entity’s staff or executive who can serve as directors. The bylaws must also set specific criteria permitting an owner or staff of a private company linked to the organization by goods or services agreement to serve as director. Finally, the bylaws stipulate that not more than one active athlete on the national or international scene shall be a director.

7. Policies for directors: The general bylaws shall prescribe the length of a director’s term, and the number of allowable successive terms. They must also specify the number of directors between 6 and 13 and stipulate that the board have at least one man and one woman. Directors must periodically evaluate the board operation and the directors’ contributions. An onboarding process must be put in place, and all directors must have access to governance training.

8. Operations of the board of directors: The general bylaws must specify a quorum, describe the responsibilities of directors, officers’ term of office, and officers’ powers and duties. This section further stipulates that directors hold a minimum of four meetings in a year, that they adopt an annual meeting schedule, and have a standard agenda that includes an in-camera session. Description of what should be included in meeting minutes is also provided.

9. Executive director: The general bylaws must specify the executive director’s relationship with the board and that a director may not be executive director. It further spells out that the board hires the executive director, determines their compensation and working conditions, and sets objectives to evaluate them once per year.

10. Board committees: The bylaws must specify that there shall be no executive committee and that they provide for the creation of three types of committees (standing, ad hoc, and statutory). The Bylaws must further provide for the creation of the following statutory committees for which the board must adopt a charter: audit committee; governance, ethics, and professional conduct committee; and the human resources committee.

11. Financial management: The board must adopt a number of policies, including policies on the delegation of spending and contracting authority, revenues, awarding of contracts, the investment and disposition of surpluses, and addressing travel expenses. In addition, the board must prepare an annual budget and monitor expenditures. It is further mandated that an annual independent audit be conducted.

12. Other administrative policies: As part of its responsibilities, the board must periodically review and monitor its policies, and report annually on their application.

13. Strategic plan: The board must adopt a strategic plan that provides quantifiable targets. They must monitor the progress and implementation of the plan twice per year. The board is also responsible for approving management’s annual action plan developed in accordance with the board’s strategic plan.

14. Commitments, accountability, and public communications: The code provides for public disclosure of a number of documents, many of which must be made easily available on the organization’s websites. These documents include, for example, general bylaws, policies, an organizational chart, the composition of the board of directors, the board’s code of ethics and professional conduct, a strategic plan, minutes of the last annual general meeting, an annual activity report, and the most recent financial report.

Compliance with the Quebec Code is a requirement for receiving funding from the Sport, Recreation and Physical Activity branch of the ministère de l’Éducation (Ministry of Education).^{Footnote 1646}

Governance principles and frameworks developed by international groups and other countries

Some international groups have adopted governance principles related to sport to provide guidance to their respective members. Below we provide examples.

International Olympic Committee

The International Olympic Committee developed the Basic Universal Principles of Good Governance within the Olympic Movement. These universal principles reflect internationally recognized standards of corporate governance and key considerations for sport organizations within the Olympic Movement.^{Footnote 1647} The document outlines several principles. We summarize below some of the key sport governance principles:

• Principle 1 – Vision, mission and strategy of sports organisations: This principle requires sport organizations to define and publicly communicate a clear vision and mission. It also highlights the importance of strategic planning that aligns with the mission.
• Principle 2 – Institutional governance: This principle calls for clearly defined roles and responsibilities of members and elected officials, public access to statutes and regulations, and the appropriate size of governing bodies. It also emphasizes diversity and inclusion, including a 30% gender balance representation, and athlete representation within governing bodies. Transparent publication of key information, democratic processes, term limits, and appeal mechanisms are also required.
• Principle 3 – Ethical and Integrity Standards: Organizations must foster a culture of ethical conduct and integrity by adopting conflict of interest and anti-corruption policies. Implementing transparent procurement and contract management processes are also required. This principle prescribes compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code, and the Olympic Movement Code on the Prevention of the Manipulation of Competitions. With respect to safeguarding, it requires the establishment of a safe sport strategy and measures to appropriately respond to safeguarding concerns. Organizations must also provide continuous education in ethics, governance, safeguarding, and integrity, ensuring everyone – from board members to volunteers – understands their responsibilities.
• Principle 4 – Financial governance: This principle requires that organizations maintain accounts using recognized standards, publish annual audited statements, and adopt multi-year financial plans. Clear rules must govern compensation and contracts. The principle further requires a number of controls such as internal audits, external audits and risk management mechanisms.
• Principle 5 – Support to athletes: This principal requires the implementation of the Athletes’ Rights and Responsibilities Declaration. It also provides that “athletes’ voices should be heard, and athletes should be represented with voting rights in the relevant decision-making bodies of sport organisations.” It also outlines expectations for athlete well-being protection, insurance access and mandatory prevention and education programs.

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe comprises 46 member States, all of which are represented on the Committee of Ministers, its decision-making body.^{Footnote 1648} The Committee of Ministers also adopted good governance principles related to sport. In 2018, they adopted Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)12.^{Footnote 1649} The Recommendation emphasizes that good governance in sport does not rest solely with sport organizations but also with governments. It recognizes that corruption, manipulation of sports competitions, and failures in governance threaten the integrity and safety of sport. As such, it sets out a set of actions that member States should take to strengthen governance in sport. It calls on member States to support, facilitate, and monitor the implementation of good governance principles.^{Footnote 1650} For example, governments are called upon to:

1. monitor progress, directly or indirectly, on how well their national sport sector implements good governance.
2. link public funding to governance standards by considering compliance with good governance principles as a criterion for public funding.
3. encourage national sport leaders to follow and advocate for good governance.
4. encourage sports organizations within their territory to:
   1. apply principles of democracy in their decision making and operations, and strengthen transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability
   2. integrate good governance measures into their internal rules and procedures.
   3. promote a culture of good governance through education
   4. ensure diverse and gender-balanced representation in decision-making
   5. cooperate with independent experts assessing their governance
   6. publish results of any governance self-assessments
   7. establish external evaluation and audit policies
   8. share information on corrupt practices with law enforcement authorities.^{Footnote 1651}

Similarly, several countries have adopted governance codes and frameworks related to sport and/or physical activity. New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Wales, Australia, and the Netherlands were the most often referenced in the course of our engagement activities. While each has taken a different approach to sport governance, they emphasize that consistency within their systems is fundamental to fostering a strong sport culture and mitigating a governance system’s vulnerabilities.

New Zealand

Sport New Zealand established a governance framework designed specifically for sport and recreation organizations.^{Footnote 1652} While the framework is not mandatory, sport organizations are encouraged and incentivized to align with its principles. Through the Governance Quality Mark program, a sport organization that meets specific governance standards will be accredited and can display a symbol that verifies this.^{Footnote 1653} Accreditation requires a third-party assessment of 37 evaluation standards every three years by a Sport New Zealand approved assessor.^{Footnote 1654}

The governance framework describes strong governance practices under four themes. We describe some of the practices below:

Clarity and cohesion

• having a clear statement of strategic direction to guide the organization
• defining the role of the board, rights of members, and the role of the chief executive
• ensuring cooperation and collaboration between the national body and its members

People

• developing policies to elect and/or appoint board members from diverse settings and with a range of skills and backgrounds

Inside the boardroom

• ensuring the board understands their role and responsibilities

Integrity and accountability

• conducting board performance reviews and a planned regime of accountability to stakeholders
• developing policies for conflicts of interest, as well as elements such as doping, match fixing, children’s sport, disputes, discipline, and sideline behaviour.^{Footnote 1655}

In addition to the accreditation program, Sport New Zealand offers a foundational development program for organizations that have not been through the accreditation process. It also has a governance self-evaluation tool and a program for individual board members to identify their development needs.^{Footnote 1656}

The governance framework and evaluation standards are based upon the elements in Sport New Zealand’s Nine Steps to Effective Governance,^{Footnote 1657} a component of their capability-building program. This resource outlines key elements to consider when addressing governance of play, active recreation, and sport organizations. It addresses governance models, relevant legislation, common challenges, and trends. ^{Footnote 1658} The Nine Steps Model explains components of effective governance, including defining the board’s role and work plan, meeting procedures, monitoring and assessment, and board recruitment.^{Footnote 1659}

United Kingdom

UK Sport and Sport England launched the Code for Sports Governance. This code sets out mandatory governance requirements for sport organizations that seek Government and National Lottery Funding from UK Sport and/or Sport England.^{Footnote 1660}

The Code for Sports Governance outlines requirements for transparency, diversity and inclusion, accountability, and integrity. Although mandatory, the code achieves flexibility by using a tiered approach to its adoption.^{Footnote 1661}

Organizations are assigned to one of three tiers, each with a different level of mandatory governance requirements.^{Footnote 1662} UK Sport and Sport England place an organization into the tier they consider most appropriate based on the size and circumstances of funding, and the organization’s type and size according to an established broad definition of the tiers.^{Footnote 1663}

In 2021, UK Sport published its Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy.^{Footnote 1664} This strategy identifies four priorities:

• create more diverse athlete and workforce talent pathways
• increase diversity of representation on national governing bodies and boards
• promote and embed inclusion
• drive equality, diversity, and inclusion within UK Sport.^{Footnote 1665}

These priorities are reflected in the Code for Sports Governance. In fact, Principle 2 in the Code specifies that sport organizations should recruit and engage with people from diverse backgrounds.^{Footnote 1666} The requirements vary depending on the sport organization’s tier category. For example, Tier 1 organizations may confirm compliance with this requirement by submitting any of the following to UK Sport, among other possibilities:

• a board skills matrix outlining the skills, experience, and diversity of its board members
• a recruitment policy that references consideration of skills and diversity of individuals
• minutes of discussion where the organization considered how to improve diversity and inclusion.

An assessor from UK Sport or Sport England may reach out to the organization to confirm their compliance and determine whether they are genuinely committed to diversity and inclusion.^{Footnote 1667}

The requirements are more stringent for Tier 3 organizations. They must publish clear ambitions to ensure their leadership represents and reflects the diversity of the communities they serve.^{Footnote 1668} Each year, they must also create a Diversity and Inclusion Action plan and submit it for approval to UK Sport or Sport England.^{Footnote 1669} The plan has to outline the organization’s proposed actions to achieve leadership diversity and must be posted on their website. In addition, the organizations are obliged to publish an annual update on their Action Plan.^{Footnote 1670} These requirements have been recognized by the Aspen Institute as a strength of the UK Sport Code of Sports Governance.^{Footnote 1671}

Tier 2 organizations are expected to meet the requirements of Tier 1 plus some additional mandatory requirements from Tier 3. The exact Tier 3 requirements to be met, and the timeline for compliance, will depend on the nature of the investment and the circumstances of the organization.^{Footnote 1672}

It is the Commission’s understanding that UK Sport works closely with sport organizations to help them comply with these requirements. When a sport organization fails to meet the UK Sport requirement, funds are withheld, and conditions are put in place until they achieve compliance.

Within its own structure, UK Sport’s Diversity and Inclusion Plan specifies that:

“[…] by 2031 the people in UK Sport will be reflective of UK society. Specifically, this means that our Board, Senior Leadership Team and Workforce will separately and collectively be comprised of min: 50% female, 20% disabled, 18% diverse ethnic background, and 3% LGBTQ+, as well as people with different lived, regional and socio-economic experiences.”^{Footnote 1673}

These national demographic benchmarks are based on the 2021 census.

Wales

Sport Wales is the national organization responsible for the stewardship of public sport funding in Wales. As a component of that stewardship, Sport Wales has developed sport governance frameworks. Welsh sport governance balances principles of both hard and soft governance to create a sport system that is both high performing and grounded in values.

Until recently, Welsh sport governance was supported by two frameworks that set minimum standards for publicly funded sport organizations in Wales: the Capability Framework introduced in 2015 ^{Footnote 1674} and the Governance and Leadership Framework introduced in 2019.^{Footnote 1675} The Capability Framework identified 7 key governance areas, each with specific requirements. All organizations were expected to meet the essential requirements, while the minimum requirements varied depending on the level of funding the organization received.^{Footnote 1676} The Governance and Leadership Framework aligned with the Capability Framework and provided actions that a board could take to implement each key principle of good governance practice.^{Footnote 1677}

Following consultations and an independent analysis, comparing the frameworks to international and cross sectorial comparators, it was determined the frameworks remained fit for purpose.^{Footnote 1678} Notwithstanding this determination, there was an interest in streamlining and improving the frameworks. As a result, Sport Wales recently released the Arwain Cymru: A Governance and People Development Framework, bringing both former frameworks together under one.^{Footnote 1679}

Sport Wales recognizes that good governance must go beyond compliance exercises and is not a one-size-fits-all approach. As such, the Arwain Cymru Framework is offered as a developmental tool intended to encourage organisations to self-evaluate, prioritize continuous improvement and cultivate leadership.

Applicable to all the organisations that receive annual funding from Sport Wales, the Framework establishes the following 5 principles:

1. Organisational and legal compliance
2. People and cultures
3. Insight, engagement and strategy
4. An effectively run organization
5. Finance^{Footnote 1680}

Each principle is supported by a clear outcome, practical explanations and examples of required minimum standards (referred to as core elements) and good practices (which are not required but demonstrate governance maturity and leadership).^{Footnote 1681} For additional clarity, the Framework provides examples of positive indicators, unacceptable behaviours, and evidence of success for each element.^{Footnote 1682}

Organizations funded by Sport Wales are required to complete a self-declaration assessing their maturity in relation to each Framework element and to create a “governance and people improvement plan” which is regularly reviewed and approved by the organization’s board.^{Footnote 1683} Organizations may be required to provide evidence that supports the self-declaration.^{Footnote 1684}

If significant concerns are identified by Sport Wales, an escalation process may be triggered. This process emphasizes collaboration to help the organization improve and reduce risk.^{Footnote 1685} Sport Wales is available to support organizations and to help them strengthen their governance on an ongoing basis.^{Footnote 1686}

Australia

In Australia, the Sport Governance Principles were co-designed through a sector-wide engagement process.^{Footnote 1687} Although these governance principles tend to be most applicable at the national, state, and territory levels, they can be used throughout the Australian sport sector.^{Footnote 1688}

According to the Australian Sports Commission, the Sport Governance Principles are intended to support a high standard of performance by those who govern a sport.^{Footnote 1689} To help sport organizations with implementing these governance principles, the Australian Sports Commission established the Sport Governance and Organizational Enhancement team. It advises and assists national sport organizations’ boards to develop sport governance practices in line with the Sport Governance Principles and Standards.^{Footnote 1690}

The Sport Governance Standards, also established following sector-wide engagement, provide measures for sport organizations to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of their governance systems and processes.^{Footnote 1691} There are 35 standards with a 4-point scale for each (1 representing low maturity and 4 representing the highest level of maturity).^{Footnote 1692} Each standard aligns with a Sport Governance Principle.^{Footnote 1693}

National and State sport organizations are invited to self-evaluate their governance against each standard using the 4-point scoring scale we described.^{Footnote 1694} Following this process, the Australian Sports Commission releases a Sport Governance Standards Benchmarking Report. This report provides insight into the current governance maturity of sport organizations and highlights where they need support.^{Footnote 1695} As a result, the Australian Sports Commission can redirect its support, education, and resources to better meet the sector’s needs.^{Footnote 1696}

The expected governance maturity of a sport organization is based on the funders’ financial investment (either the Australian Sports Commission or the State and Territory Agencies for Sport and Recreation) and the sport organization’s generated revenue.^{Footnote 1697} In essence, the expected governance maturity of a sport organization depends on their overall internal capacity.^{Footnote 1698} The Australian Sports Commission makes it clear that expectations refer to the anticipated maturity level rather than a strict compliance level.^{Footnote 1699}

Principle 4 of the Sport Governance Standards specifies that a board should be composed of diverse individuals with different perspectives and experiences to ensure improved decision making.^{Footnote 1700} The standards for this principle state that the board selection matrix should provide for a mix of skills, expertise, and experiences.^{Footnote 1701} Goals should also be set regarding board composition and consider diversity, equity, and inclusion. Finally, the board should be composed of no more than 50% of one gender, the role of chair or deputy chair should be filled by a female or gender diverse person, and the directors should be independent.^{Footnote 1702}

Australia recently launched the National Gender Equity in Sport Governance Policy.^{Footnote 1703} Subject to some exceptions, this policy requires all national and state sport organizations, as well as organizations receiving specified funding, to meet gender equity targets for their boards of directors by July 2027.^{Footnote 1704} Equity, diversity, and inclusion are also a key focus of Australia’s Sport Participation Strategy — Play Well^{Footnote 1705} and Australia’s 2032+ High Performance Sport Strategy.^{Footnote 1706}

Netherlands

Following the publication of a Code of Conduct in the corporate sector in the early 2000s, which provided recommendations on several governance-related matters to restore investor and citizen confidence in the corporate world, the Netherlands Olympic Committee introduced a Code of Good Sports Governance intended for its members.^{Footnote 1707} It was updated in 2021 and is based on four principles: responsibility, democracy, society, and transparency.^{Footnote 1708} All sport organizations in the Netherlands are now expected to comply with the Code.^{Footnote 1709}

Compliance is based on the “implement or explain” principle, which stems from the Dutch Corporate Code of Governance. In the sport context, this approach requires sport organizations to comply with the code of sport governance or explain in their annual reports why they failed to comply with portions of it.^{Footnote 1710} The code therefore offers room for flexibility according to each organization’s own circumstances, while also providing a compass for integrity and socially responsible governance of every sports organization in the country.^{Footnote 1711} Directors and supervisors of sports organizations in the Netherlands must account for compliance with the code during the general meeting and in the annual report.^{Footnote 1712}

There are lessons to be learned from each of these models to strengthen and improve Canada’s approach to sport governance.

Reminder of the Commission’s preliminary recommendations

In its Preliminary Report, the Commission made six recommendations to address the current governance shortcomings found within the Canadian sport system. These recommendations called for:

• the Government of Canada to make the Canadian Sport Governance Code mandatory for all federally funded sport organizations
• compliance with the Code would be subject to a transition period
• the Government of Canada to provide support to assist federally funded sport organizations to comply with the Code
• the Government of Canada be the custodian of the Code and responsible for its regular review (considering that no organization is currently responsible for the Canadian Sport Governance Code). This responsibility would be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once established.
• the Code would be enhanced with these five additional governance practices:
  • racial diversity as a consideration in the selection of board members
  • regular anti-racism training for all board members
  • athlete representation on boards
  • regular training on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport
  • specific transparency measures for organizations.
• regular audits of federally funded sport organizations be conducted as oversight would be key to ensuring effective implementation of the Canadian Sport Governance Code.

In addition to these six recommendations, the Commission proposed two options to promote uniformity and strengthen sport governance across all levels of the Canadian sport system. The first option proposed that the Government of Canada use its spending power to achieve greater uniformity of governance standards between the federal and the provincial and territorial levels of sport. The second option proposed that the Government of Canada collaborate with the provincial and territorial governments to establish and legislate similar federal and provincial/territorial sport governance standards.

A mandatory and harmonized approach to sport governance grounded in accountability

As we have seen, there is no standardized approach to sport governance in Canada and little to no oversight. The Commission’s Calls to Action aim to address the current governance shortcomings in the sport system.

Our Calls to Action address four important needs:

• the need for mandatory sport governance standards
• the need to review and enhance sport governance standards
• the need for sport governance standards oversight
• the need for a harmonized approach to sport governance standards at all levels of sport.

In the following sections, and through to the end of this chapter, we outline the feedback we received before and after the release of our Preliminary Report for each of these needs, including comments provided during the National Summit. We also present our final findings and Calls to Action for each of them.

The need for mandatory sport governance standards

Participants’ perspectives on mandatory sport governance standards

Throughout our engagement activities, participants reiterated that there is a governance crisis in sport.

Participants highlighted that the current sport governance framework in Canada is limited and subject to very little compliance oversight. Some described the existing governance requirements as little more than a procedural exercise to access public funding.

When discussing whether to make compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code mandatory, some participants were concerned it would add to boards’ already demanding work. They noted that most board members already have full-time jobs and limited time for these roles.

We were also informed that some National Sport Organizations might find it difficult, or even impossible, to comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code because of their current governance structures. For example, if a current bylaw does not align with the governance requirement, the sport organization would need to seek a change to the bylaw. Such a change is subject to the vote of the organization’s membership, which is often made up of Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. National Sport Organizations indicated that forcing these changes would be challenging. Some also shared that the greatest challenge to implementing governance changes in their organization remains the attitudes and actions of their board of directors. Some noted that considering the lack of understanding about good governance practices, efforts to implement new standards are viewed with suspicion and sometimes serious opposition. In other cases, participants suggested that a sport organization may be restricted from complying due to the specific requirements of its International Federation although they provided no specific example.

By contrast, we heard from different participants, including National Sport Organizations, who welcomed the Canadian Sport Governance Code. When the 2023 announcement was made, they worked toward reaching compliance with the Code. Some stated they found it odd that the Code was “tossed aside.” They said that was a result of pressure from a few sport organizations. Others said that, given the work done by their previous boards to implement good governance practices, complying with the Canadian Sport Governance Code was not difficult. With respect to the Code’s content, we heard that its substance reflects best-in-class governance practices and it should be regularly reviewed and updated.

The academics and experts the Commission met with were unanimous in their view that sport organizations ought to meet basic governance standards. They noted how the sport sector was one of the only sectors lagging on governance. Indeed, most of them believed that the Canadian Sport Governance Code ought to apply to all sport organizations and that these organizations should be subject to compliance verification. In fact, participants recognized that sport organizations could easily implement and comply with the Code, because unlike other Codes it is succinct.

In terms of good governance practices, we heard from academics and experts that the Code reflects a number of recognized practices, but that enhancements could be made in certain areas to strengthen it. The following were highlighted as examples of good governance principles currently captured in the Code:

• boards’ and committees’ roles and responsibilities
• skills and experiences of board members and committees
• transparency
• integrity
• respect and consideration for all interested parties
• accountability.

Experts emphasized that if we want good governance standards in sport, it has to start with governments taking a stance. They must use their spending levers to make governance standards mandatory, whether through legislation or the implementation of funding conditions.

Some have also observed that:

“Despite substantial public funding, and significant economic and social influence, sport has no equivalent legislative or regu-latory structure [as opposed to structures in place for agriculture, forestry, and automotive manufacturing]. This absence leaves it [sport] uniquely exposed to misconduct, corruption, criminal infiltration, and risks to the people, communities, and industries that depend on it. Unlike other sectors where law, regulation, and enforcement act together, Canadian sport has relied almost entirely on voluntary governance codes that are narrow in scope, rarely enforced, and lacking independent assessment.”^{Footnote 1713}

While our recommendation to make the Canadian Sport Governance Code mandatory for all federally funded sport organizations received a high degree of support, some participants suggested that it required revisions. They therefore preferred the adoption of a set of sport governance standards over the Code’s imposition.

Some participants suggested that an in-depth audit of all National Sport Organizations’ governance practices should be undertaken before making any recommendations on the nature of the governance standards. They told us this would provide a baseline for the eventual governance code and that proceeding without such an audit was akin to working backwards.

Those who did not express support for mandating the entire Canadian Sport Governance Code agreed that minimal governance standards should be required of sport organizations.

Although participants recognized that voluntary adherence to a set of sport governance principles or to the Code can legitimize the values upon which the Code is built, a mandatory code would allow for true change to occur. As some explained, making sport governance principles mandatory by tying it to funding would make sport organizations take the required steps to ensure these changes. Without such requirements, these changes might have been opposed by existing board members or by the wider membership of the sport organization.

However, we also heard that making sport governance principles mandatory by tying it to funding would have to be done thoughtfully to minimize any negative impact on athletes in the event of a sport organization’s governance failure. On that note, we heard a number of suggestions about how non-compliance with sport governance principles could be addressed in a way that would not directly affect athletes. Some suggested that there should be personal sanctions on the directors, for example, removing them from the board or preventing them from taking on leadership roles within sport. It was not clear how these could be implemented given the independent nature of these corporations. The Commission was also warned that oversight of compliance with sport governance principles would have to go beyond a simple “check-box” exercise. Overall, most individuals and organizations the Commission engaged with agreed that sport governance principles should be tied to funding.

Considering the importance of standardized, mandatory sport governance principles across all levels of sport and jurisdictions, participants felt that their implementation should have some flexibility. This was a key point considering the varying levels of sport organizations’ capacity across the sport system, especially at the community level.

Two suggestions were made to provide this flexibility for sport organizations in complying with standardized governance standards. The first was to add language to the Canadian Sport Governance Code to provide the possibility to request an exemption from complying with a specific requirement by providing an explanation as to why they were unable to comply. The exemption would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some thought this would be an important feature considering sport organizations may have specific governance requirements to abide by as required by their governing international body, for example.

The second suggestion was to consider a tiered approach to compliance with sport governance principles. Reference was made to UK Sport’s approach which considers, among other things, an organization’s size and capacity. Participants suggested that this tiered approach could be adapted in the Canadian context in order to not penalize small, less-funded sport organizations who may otherwise struggle to implement the sport governance principles. As some participants framed it, good governance practices are necessary but the governance standards required of an organization may differ based on its scope and capacity. For example, the standards expected of an organization that receives multi-year funding may not be the same for an organization that receives only one-time project funding.

Calls to Action: mandatory sport governance standards

As we outlined earlier, the sport system in Canada relies heavily on volunteers. Participants repeatedly stated that these volunteers often come from within the sport they represent (e.g., former athletes, coaches, parents of athletes, administrators). Although well-intentioned, they often do not have the governance experience or skills needed to address today’s complex challenges as they relate to safeguarding in sport and other complex, emerging issues.

Given this reality, it is not surprising to learn about the significant governance challenges that exist within the sport system. Boards of directors often lack essential skills, training, and understanding of directors’ responsibilities, and often face real and perceived conflicts of interest. Their lack of diversity in terms of gender, ethnicity, and disability-specific expertise highlights the need for a wider range of perspectives and experiences within decision-making processes. And in the absence of regular oversight and examination of governance practices within sport organizations, there is no guidance or support for boards seeking to make needed changes in their governance practices.

For example, conflicts of interest could be avoided by recruiting and selecting a diverse board of directors. Transparency and accountability could be achieved through the proactive and consistent publication of annual reports and itemized financial statements on an easily accessible and identifiable web page.

We also believe that mandatory governance standards would increase consistency across all sport organization governance structures and provide the needed guidance to boards of directors with varying degrees of sophistication in governance. Further, by making the Canadian Sport Governance Code mandatory as a condition of funding, sport organizations could rely on the mandatory requirement to respond to any resistance from their boards of directors.

With time, proper support, and compliance oversight, which we will discuss later in this chapter, stronger and more effective governance structures and practices will emerge within the sport system.

The Commission believes that compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code must be required of all federally funded sport organizations. In fact, sport organizations should already be complying with the Code’s governance requirements.

The Cromwell Report and the above-mentioned standing committee reports made recommendations referencing basic good governance practices to mitigate or remediate the issues that sport organizations were facing. Many of these practices are in fact reflected in the Canadian Sport Governance Code. For example, the Cromwell Report referred to:

• adopting a formal statement describing both the board’s and management’s mandate, functions, roles, and responsibilities.^{Footnote 1714} This requirement is reflected in provision B.4. of the Code.^{Footnote 1715}
• ensuring a portion of the directors on the board are independent.^{Footnote 1716} This requirement is reflected in provision B.2. of the Code.^{Footnote 1717}
• establishing a nominating committee.^{Footnote 1718} This requirement is reflected in provisions C.1. and C.3. of the Code.^{Footnote 1719}

A further example is the recommendation for comprehensive financial and organizational transparency and accountability made by both the Cromwell Report and the Report from the Canadian Heritage Standing Committee on Safe Sport in Canada.^{Footnote 1720} Some transparency requirements are captured in provision F of the Code. Appendix 11 provides a table that lists some of the good governance practices contemplated in the Canadian Sport Governance Code and referenced in other sources.

We also understand that following the then-minister’s announcement in 2023 that the Code would become mandatory, some National Sport Organizations started working toward compliance with it. The Commission was informed that at least 33 National Sport Organizations have reported they have adopted and complied with the Canadian Sport Governance Code, even though Sport Canada does not currently require it as a condition of funding, recognizing the importance of good governance practices. In addition, Sport Canada requires all federally funded National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes to meet governance requirements. Their compliance is mandatory to be eligible for funding under the Sport Support Program. These governance requirements are also reflected in the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Many federally funded sport organizations are already complying with many of the governance requirements outlined in the Code.

The Commission recognizes that compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code may present challenges for some sport organizations.

However, we strongly believe that the time has come for the Government of Canada to take a stance in making good governance practices a priority.

With respect to challenges, we wish to note that not-for-profit corporation legislation is intentionally broad because it provides a basic framework that can apply to various sectors. As a result, many good governance practices are unspecified in this legislation. By contrast, governance codes or standards tend to be more prescriptive than the legislation.

We commend Quebec’s leadership in prioritizing good governance of their provincial sport and recreation non-profit organizations. We echo the sentiments they shared in the introduction to their Code of Governance for Québec Sport and Recreation Non-Profit Organizations:

[Translation] “In short, organizations need and deserve boards that are more effective in governance. The sport and recreation community can no longer afford to maintain boards that do not see developing and strengthening their own performance as a priority. The long-term success of these organizations depends, at least in part, on their ability to instill in their directors the conviction that while good intentions are a start, they are not enough to do all the work required to successfully lead their organizations through the challenges of the future. The level of excellence targeted by this Code of Governance [The Code of Governance for Québec Sport and Recreation Non-Profit Organizations] is far more demanding.”^{Footnote 1721}

Academics and experts who participated in our engagement process were adamant that sport governance standards need to be mandatory. Any challenges or difficulties that sport organizations described as barriers to compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code should signal to the Government of Canada areas where these organizations require guidance, support, and direction. These challenges and difficulties should not prevent mandating compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Measures should be implemented to assist sport organizations in reaching full compliance with the Code and alleviate any challenges or difficulties they may encounter.

A transition period should be considered to provide sufficient time for sport organizations to comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code without impeding their eligibility for funding during the transition. The length of this period could take into consideration an organization’s capacity to comply. For example, a smaller sport organization might require a longer transition period than would a larger one. Such an approach would provide flexibility while still requiring compliance with minimum good governance standards.

As Chapter 13 outlined, as a cost saving measure, sport organizations could come together and hire one consultant to assist them with the compliance process instead of each organization having to do so independently. In addition, proper support and guidance should be made readily available to sport organizations to assist them in reaching compliance with the Code.

It is worth noting that governance resources and courses tailored to not-for-profit organizations, developed by reputable institutions in Canada, are available. It is also the Commission’s understanding that the Canadian Olympic Committee offers a free governance training program to National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. This training is delivered through a university-affiliated school of business. All sport organizations across Canada should make full use of these resources.

The Canadian Sport Governance Code appears to currently reside on the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Sport Information Resource Centre websites. However, most participants the Commission met with could not pinpoint the entity responsible for the Code and suggested that it belongs to the sport community at large. Others believed that Sport Canada was the Code’s custodian. While collaboration, cooperation, and engagement are important when developing a governance code, this code must reside with a single entity to remain relevant and have credibility within the sport community.

Therefore, the Commission is of the view that the Government of Canada should be the custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code until the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 12 is established. The government should also be responsible for its regular review in collaboration with governance experts. The next section will explore in greater detail the need for regular reviews of sport governance standards.

Calls to Action

The Commission calls for the following actions to be taken:

70. The Government of Canada shall mandate that all federally funded sport organizations adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code and its future iterations. This will require revisions to the Canadian Sport Governance Code, which is currently tailored to National Sport Organizations.
71. The Government of Canada shall provide a reasonable transition period to allow federally funded sport organizations to comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code without affecting their funding. This transition period shall not apply to the governance requirements that are currently mandatory under the Sport Support Program for National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes.
72. The Government of Canada shall provide support, including funding, to federally funded sport organizations to comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 12 once it is established.
73. The Government of Canada shall be the custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code and shall be responsible, in collaboration with governance experts, for its regular review to ensure it remains current and reflects evolving governance best practices. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 12 once it is established.

The need to regularly review governance standards and enhance governance standards

Given the continued evolution of good governance practices, the custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code will need to assume its regular review. This review should be conducted in collaboration with governance experts to ensure it remains current and reflects evolving governance best practices.

The need to regularly review governance standards

Participants’ perspectives on the regular review of governance standards

We heard from some participants that if adoption of and compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code was going to be required as a condition of funding, it would first need to be reviewed. While they acknowledged that mandatory governance standards in sport are needed, they said that the Canadian Sport Governance Code in its current iteration is not suitable as the standard. Some expressed that the Code is inflexible and poorly designed. For example, we heard that the Code was problematic where it prescribed the sport organization’s most senior staff person’s title based on the number of employees. Participants saw this as outside the scope of good governance practices. They were not convinced the Code reflected minimal good governance standards and that there may be better examples available elsewhere. A revision would ensure that the Code could be applied to all federally funded sport organizations, provide flexibility, and reflect enhanced and modernized governance principles.

Final findings on the regular review of governance standards

We recognize that the working group who drafted the Canadian Sport Governance Code anticipated that it would be reviewed no later than December 2026.^{Footnote 1722} Considering that the Code in its current iteration was first released in 2021, a review process should be initiated immediately and completed within 12 months.

We emphasize that the review of the Canadian Sport Governance Code should not delay making it mandatory for all federally funded sport organizations. Regular reviews are important to keep the Code relevant and aligned with good governance practices. This review exercise should happen at the same time as mandatory adoption.

The need to enhance governance standards

In the Preliminary Report, the Commission proposed five governance requirements that should be added to the Canadian Sport Governance Code. These requirements addressed the need for:

• diverse representation on boards of directors
• athlete representation with voting rights
• mandatory training of all board members on anti-racism and inclusion
• education on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport
• increased transparency.

Participants’ perspectives on enhanced governance standards

In addition to the five additional governance requirements the Commission recommended in its Preliminary Report, participants reiterated that board-member term limits must be reflected in the Canadian Sport Governance Code. We heard that without term limits, individuals sometimes remain in their board positions for many years and for many reasons, including to benefit from some of the advantages and opportunities associated with their role. The importance of term limits was also presented as a structural safeguard, ensuring renewal, creating space for new skills, and helping address persistent performance issues.

Similarly, most organized sport participants who responded to the Commission's online public survey and answered questions about improving the sport system in Canada agreed that the same people remain on board of directors for a long time. Specifically, a combined 54.0% of respondents either "Strongly agree" (22.8%) or "Somewhat agree" (31.2%) with that statement.

Participants to the commission’s engagement activities also addressed the issue of conflicts of interest on boards. They shared that head coaches should not be eligible to sit on boards, nor should parents if their child is on the national team (speaking of national sport organizations). By contrast, some participants wondered whether it was necessary to prevent those connected to sport from serving as board members.

The Commission’s online public survey also found evidence that among organized sport participants who answered questions about improving the sport system, 48.0% indicated that they were concerned about potential conflicts of interest in the sport organization they interact with the most. The results from the Commission’s survey also suggests that concern about conflicts of interest was higher among respondents with direct or indirect experience of maltreatment, including:

• those who experienced maltreatment (68.6%)
• those who witnessed maltreatment (57.9%)
• those who made a maltreatment complaint (60.5%)
• those who did not make a complaint (56.9%)
• those who were the subject of a maltreatment complaint (64.4%).

Participants involved in the Commission’s engagement activities also raised other areas to be considered in the Canadian Sport Governance Code. These include:

• employee well-being
• data protection and cybersecurity
• anti-bribery and anti-corruption
• whistleblower protection
• awareness of emerging issues such as match fixing, gambling, and betting
• board skills and succession planning.

Participants’ perspectives on representative boards of directors

Throughout our engagement activities, participants expressed concerns about the lack of diverse voices at the decision-making tables. They noted that several boards remain very insular and that the same individuals are repeatedly making the same decisions. Others told us that boards of directors are not always a welcoming and inclusive environment for individuals from equity-deserving groups, including racialized individuals. For example, we heard of situations where racialized board members had to justify their experience, and skill sets when seeking positions as a director or officer in contrast to what was required of other candidates. They were also overtly subjected to racism.

Many participants suggested that to bring change, organizations need clear expectations and standards for board diversity. This would involve making diverse representation mandatory on boards of directors and encouraging sport organizations to create meaningful opportunities for racialized individuals to reach leadership positions.

However, participants also acknowledged that the first racialized individuals appointed after the mandated requirement might be seen as a token rather than a merit-based appointment infusing new skills. Despite this concern, members of racialized communities still believed that such an approach was necessary to achieve real change.

They also insisted that any consideration for mandated representation of racialized people on boards should be accompanied by support measures to ensure that these individuals remain in these positions. For instance, a supportive measure could involve ensuring anti-racism and inclusion training for members of the board and that a minimum of two members representing racialized diversity are appointed.

Many suggested that mandating the representation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour on boards of directors would result in boards that better reflect Canadian society. Others suggested requiring boards to adopt a statement outlining their strategy to achieve diversity at the board level. They would need a target of at least 30% of directors from the Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour communities. We were told that a similar approach should also be considered for other equity-deserving groups such as those who identify as 2SLGBTQI+ and individuals with a disability.

To ensure that boards of directors fulfill their responsibilities to address diversity, participants suggested that sport organizations should be required to report annually on their boards’ composition. This report would be submitted to the organization’s governmental funder and to its membership at the annual general meeting.

The Commission’s public survey asked organized sport participants who answered questions about improving the sport system in Canada whether the board of directors of the sport organization they deal with the most was sufficiently diverse to reflect the community served by the sport organization. Respondents were almost split on this question with 35.7% strongly or somewhat agreeing and 32.5% strongly or somewhat disagreeing. Marginalized groups — specifically racialized, Indigenous, and 2SLGBTQI+ respondents — tended to register higher rates of disagreement (36.4%, 41.0%, and 42.2% respectively when combining “somewhat disagree” and “strongly disagree”) with the statement.

In response to the Commission’s preliminary recommendation to include racial diversity when selecting board members, there was no disagreement. However, participants involved in the engagement process sought a broader approach to ensure diverse representation on boards of directors. They told us that individuals from different equity-deserving communities should be represented, including members of the 2SLGBTQI+ and members of the disability communities. The need for Indigenous people’s representation on all boards of directors was also raised.

While some participants reiterated their concerns that diversity as a selection requirement could lead to tokenism, others agreed that without diversity quotas, there would be no incentive for change. They said that without quotas, it would be too easy to let a concern for diversity fall to the side.

There was clear consensus that sport organization boards of directors need to be diverse and reflective of Canadian society. Furthermore, participants suggested that beyond a board’s makeup reflecting diversity, board members themselves should all be individuals who are committed to equity, diversity, and decolonization.

Final findings on representative boards of directors

According to our analysis of Canada’s 2021 census data, approximately 30% of the Canadian population identifies as either Black, Indigenous, or People of Colour.^{Footnote 1723} Between 2019 and 2021, approximately 4.4% of the Canadian population aged 15 years and older reported being 2SLGBTQI+.^{Footnote 1724} The 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability noted that 27% of the Canadian population aged 15 years and older have one or more disabilities.^{Footnote 1725}

Despite this demographic data, we noted during our engagement activities that diversity is still not consistently reflected in the membership of sport organizations’ boards of directors. The Commission is of the view that diversity must be reflected at all levels of the sport system, including on boards of directors.

The Canadian Sport Governance Code highlights the importance of diversity at the board level. It encourages National Sport Organizations to develop a policy for diversity at the board level and to report annually on its initiatives to recruit directors from diverse communities. The Code specifies that:

“[…] each [National Sport Organization] should develop a policy for diversity at the board level. Diversity refers to the broad range of demographic characteristics that exists across Canadian society including, but not limited to, sex, gender identity, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, economic means, ability, age, official language of Canada spoken, religion and education. The board should report annually as to its approach and initiatives taken to attract directors with the required skills and diversity (including with respect to gender representation), whether it considers its initiatives successful and any additional steps the board will be making towards this objective.”^{Footnote 1726}

However, other than stipulating that “no more than 60% of the directors are the same gender”, the Code does not make any specific requirements in terms of board composition and diversity representation.

The value and importance of diverse boards of directors are not new. Both the Cromwell Report^{Footnote 1727} and the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women^{Footnote 1728} noted how important it is to ensure that boards of directors reflect diversity.^{Footnote 1729} The Commission recognizes that most sport organizations already have diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and strategies. However, these policies and strategies, on their own, have not resulted in a diversity of representation on boards of directors.

Considering participants’ feedback and considering the Canadian population’s makeup, the Commission is of the view that sport organization boards of directors should reflect Canada’s diversity. They should include representation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour as well as other equity-deserving groups such as individuals who identify as 2SLGBTQI+ and those who have disabilities. Therefore, the Commission has broadened the scope of its preliminary recommendation.

With a clear mandate, organizations can achieve diverse representation. Because sport is a direct expression of who we are as Canadians, sport at all levels must lead to shared values such as diversity and inclusion. Sport organizations must uphold these values and comply with mandatory requirements of having diverse representation on their boards of directors. Voluntary efforts alone have failed to achieve diverse representation.

The Commission therefore reiterates the importance of ensuring that proactive and concrete steps be taken to creating boards of directors that truly reflect the diversity of Canadian society.

The existence of policies addressing diverse representation on boards of directors is not enough. Merely reporting on attempts to achieve diverse representation is no longer an acceptable response to these policies. Such policies must be implemented. Actions speak louder than words.

Considering the above, the Commission maintains that to accelerate meaningful and measurable progress in board diversity, and to increase diverse representation of sport organization boards of directors, diversity must be considered when board members are selected.

We also remain of the view that the proposal to mandate the representation of equity-deserving groups on boards of directors’ merits further and immediate attention. The international models explored earlier in this chapter describe different approaches applied to achieve diverse representation in leadership, including boards of directors, and should be explored further.

Finally, the Commission maintains its preliminary recommendation that to cultivate a welcoming, inclusive, and safe board environments, inclusion and anti-racism training must be mandatory for all board members, and this training must be delivered regularly.

Participants’ perspectives on athlete representation

Athletes shared with the Commission that they hold a unique position in National Sport Organizations. Although these organizations exist to serve them, athletes are often not considered members of these sport organizations and they have historically been excluded from formal governance structures, especially from boards of directors.^{Footnote 1730} The lack of representation of athletes’ voices on sport organizations boards of directors was further supported by the Commission’s online public survey. In fact, the survey reports that a majority of organized sport participant respondents who answered questions about improving the sport system in Canada feel that athletes do not have a voice on the board of directors. A combined 42.0% of respondents either “Somewhat disagree” (19.2%) or “Strongly disagree” (22.8%) with the statement that athletes have a voice, while 31.5% either "Strongly agree" (11.9%) or “Somewhat agree” (19.6%).

Throughout our engagement activities, athletes advocated for their representation in governance structures, including voting rights. Other participants noted the need to recognize various identities in the sport system, including coaches, officials, and administrators.

Several participants raised concerns regarding athlete representation in National Sport Organizations’ governance structures. Some were concerned that athletes’ interests may not always align with the broader interests of increasing participation and improving programming across the sport system. We also heard that athletes’ personal interest in their sport might lead to conflicts of interest in decision making. Some suggested that conflicts of interest could be mitigated by having retired athlete representatives instead of active athletes. Others suggested the possibility of having athlete representatives from both the Parasport and non-Parasport sectors of the sport, with their voting rights limited to decisions relating to the other sport. It was noted that this is possible only where the sport is integrated.

National Sport Organizations identified a challenge raised by their current governance structures. The Commission learned that in some governance structures, bylaws prescribe that directors are elected by the National Sport Organization’s membership, which is composed of Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. These bylaws do not currently include a requirement for an athlete representative to serve as a director.

Changing the bylaws to require that one director be an athlete representative would require a membership vote. Some National Sport Organizations told us that it would be difficult for them to insist that their members, the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, elect an athlete as director. This is because reserving a seat for an athlete could reduce those members’ ability to advance their own priorities at the national level.

These organizations expressed concern that mandating an athlete representative position could also undermine perceived legitimacy because candidates would compete only within a limited pool and not through a broader election process. That is, candidates seeking to hold that position would only be competing with others vying for the same position. Some described this scenario as the athlete representative effectively being elected without the “popular vote.” As an alternative to athlete representation on boards of directors, some suggested mechanisms to seek input from athletes and have athletes involved in committee work.

That said, a number of National Sport Organizations and National Multisport Service Organizations the Commission engaged with recognized the importance of athlete representation and confirmed that they have athlete representation on their board of directors.

In its Preliminary Report, the Commission recommended that boards of directors must include an athlete representative to serve as a director with full voting rights. The feedback we received in response to this recommendation outlined several benefits and some concerns.

Supporters of mandatory athlete representation suggested that these representatives be elected by the athletes of the sport. They noted however that for meaningful representation of athletes to be achieved, it would require more than one athlete representative. Some participants cautioned the Commission on making it a requirement. Some participants said that an athlete’s presence might increase the risk of retaliation against them when they voiced their opinion, resulting in further silencing athletes. To address this concern, participants suggested that athletes should be represented by retired athletes.

Considering the Commission’s recommendation to make the Canadian Sport Governance Code mandatory for all federally funded sport organizations, some wondered whether athlete representation should be a requirement for all of these funded sport organizations. Some thought that athlete representation may not be relevant for an organization like ParticipACTION, for example, and the requirement would therefore result in more of a check-box exercise.

Participants also raised some concerns about athlete representation in the event the Canadian Sport Governance Code gets applied at the provincial, territorial, and community levels of sport. In that context, participants shared that mandating athlete representation on boards of directors would simply not be possible, given the age of participating athletes. In cases where athletes’ age would not permit their participation on boards of directors, participants suggested requiring an athlete committee headed by a board member obliged to consult with the athlete participants.

Final findings on athlete representation

Confusion and uncertainty surrounding the requirement of athlete representation on boards of directors remains. The Canadian Sport Governance Code, released in 2021, recognizes that meaningful athlete representation in the governance structure is fundamental.^{Footnote 1731} While the Code strongly encourages National Sport Organizations to have an athlete representative on their boards of directors, each board decides how to best achieve meaningful representation.^{Footnote 1732} The Code further states that a National Sport Organization that decides not to have an athlete representative on its board must appoint at least one athlete representative as a board observer. Regardless of the approach the board selects, a process for selecting an athlete representative with significant input from that sport’s athletes must be developed.^{Footnote 1733}

Sport Canada’s Sport Support Program eligibility criteria released in 2024 requires National Sport Organizations to have a “transparent and inclusive process” for selecting an athlete representative on their board of directors.^{Footnote 1734}

The importance of meaningful and true athlete representation within a sport’s governance structure and decision-making processes was recognized in the Cromwell Report^{Footnote 1735} and the reports of both standing committees. In fact, the report entitled “Time to Listen to Survivors: Taking Action Towards Creating a Safe Sport Environment for All Athletes in Canada” recommends the inclusion of athletes in all bodies and all decision-making processes regarding sport in Canada.^{Footnote 1736} Similarly, the Safe Sport in Canada report by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommends the inclusion of athletes in all bodies and all decision-making processes regarding safe sport in Canada.^{Footnote 1737}

The Commission notes that the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, which forms the legislative framework for federally funded sport organizations, does not prevent athletes from serving on boards of directors. Athlete representation is allowed as long as the athlete representative meets the qualifications to be a director as per the Act^{Footnote 1738} and is either elected^{Footnote 1739} or appointed by the directors.^{Footnote 1740} Under the Act, it is possible for directors to appoint a director if the articles of corporation allow them to do so. The term of such an appointed director expires at the close of the next annual meeting of members.^{Footnote 1741}

We also recognize the unique nature and realities of each federally funded sport organization. We understand that mandating an athlete representative as a member of the board of directors, with full voting rights, may require changes to their structure. Implementing such a change will take time and effort. We also understand that mandating athlete representation could unfairly cast doubt about their legitimacy as board members compared to other board members who are elected based on specific governance skills and expertise. However, the Commission is of the view that these initial challenges are outweighed by the importance of meaningful athlete representation on sport organizations’ boards of directors.

To address some of the feedback we received from participants questioning whether athlete representation would be relevant for National Multisport Service Organizations, the Commission echoes the findings made in both standing committees’ reports. They acknowledged the importance of athlete representation in all sport bodies and decision-making processes^{Footnote 1742}, which would include these organizations. We however recognize that the constituency of athletes represented in different organizations may differ and include a variety of athletes from different levels of sport.

In addition, as raised in other chapters of this Report, athletes with disabilities have unique needs. It is especially important for athletes with disabilities to be represented on boards of sport organizations where Disability sport is integrated or where the organization delivers services to athletes with disabilities.

Given the importance for athlete representation, we understand that some National Sport Organizations and National Multisport Service Organizations have taken steps to amend their by-laws to include an athlete representative as part of its board composition.^{Footnote 1743}

For all these reasons, the Commission remains of the view that it should be mandatory for every board to include an athlete representative — either active or former — with full voting rights. This requirement applies to National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes.

Participants’ perspectives on mandatory training on preventing and addressing maltreatment for boards of directors

The Commission heard numerous accounts from victims and survivors who felt that their experiences were inadequately addressed by their sport organization’s management or board of directors. As a result, many often felt they were left without clear guidance and struggled to access help or remedies for what they had experienced.

We also heard harrowing descriptions of athletes and parents being silenced or shunned by organizations after raising allegations of abuse or maltreatment. We were troubled to learn these athletes were often considered to be troublemakers or accused of seeking retribution for their own shortcomings in training or performance.

We were therefore not surprised that a large majority of participants at the National Summit organized by the Commission supported our recommendation that all board members receive mandatory and regular training on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport. The training should be based on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

We heard that boards of directors need training on how to report maltreatment. They must be held accountable when complaints come forward. Some participants anticipated that requiring such training on a recurring basis, for example, annually, might be burdensome for volunteer board members. They suggested that the training be required for any new members, and then annually for current members if substantive changes to the University Code of Conduct content have been made. Some suggested safeguarding training through a human rights lens to understand the need for a code, rather than training on the Code itself. Others added that training on a trauma-informed approach should also be considered.

Final findings on mandatory training on preventing and addressing maltreatment for boards of directors

The experiences shared with the Commission — and the findings and recommendations from the two above mentioned standing committees, the Cromwell Report, and the two McLaren Reports — underscore the need for a comprehensive understanding of maltreatment in sport. Every individual within a sport organization, including board members, must also be familiar with the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

Support for such mandatory training is also found in Recommendation 17 of the “Time to Listen to Survivors: Taking Action Towards Creating a Safe Sport Environment for All Athletes in Canada” report.^{Footnote 1744} Both the Canadian Sport Governance Code^{Footnote 1745} and the Sport Support Program funding eligibility criteria^{Footnote 1746} require mandatory orientation and training for board members on the fundamentals of good governance and board responsibilities.

To be eligible for funding under the Sport Support Program a sport organization must also adopt the Canadian Safe Sport Program.^{Footnote 1747} We understand that under the Canadian Safe Sport Program, participants, including a sport organization’s board members, must complete a course about the Canadian Safe Sport Program’s rules and processes relating to maltreatment.^{Footnote 1748}

The Commission remains of the view that training focused on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport, based on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, must be part of the mandatory training for all sport organizations’ boards of directors. Given its importance, this training should be incorporated into the onboarding process for all new board members. In addition, all members should receive annual refresher training.

Participants’ perspectives on financial transparency

On numerous occasions, the Commission heard from participants who were unable to find key financial documents, such as annual statements, on sport organization websites.

We were told that sport organizations should show that public funds are being used as intended by proactively disclosing financial information such as senior leadership salaries. As some put it, financial reports would demonstrate that funds are going toward sport development rather than excessive salaries. Participants strongly insisted that the public should know where the money is going.

Participants also noted that a lack of financial transparency and accountability raises concerns about a sport organization’s legitimacy and efficiency and affects people’s trust in the organization. Some also stated that financial transparency mitigates risks of corruption within the organization.

Many from whom we heard, including athletes, advocated for full financial transparency regarding funds received from Sport Canada and the provision of detailed information as to how those funds are spent.

Most participants supported our preliminary recommendation requiring sport organizations to publicly post documents on their website. This includes board meeting minutes, an annual report, and the annual disclosure of public funds received with an accounting of their use. Some suggested that the annual disclosure of funds should include all financials and not be limited to public funds.

Final findings on financial transparency

As recipients of public funding, sport organizations must be accountable not only to their funders but, more importantly, to Canadians. A lack of transparency and readily available information diminishes public trust.

By proactively and consistently disclosing financial information and sharing key governance-related information and documents, sport organizations can demonstrate the proper, effective, and efficient use of funds. This transparency will, in turn, bolster public trust, demonstrate accountability, and enhance confidence in the organization.

The call for transparent and accessible financial disclosure was raised by other participants, including governance experts. The Cromwell Report^{Footnote 1749} also called for transparent and accessible financial disclosure, as did Recommendation 4 of the Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled “Safe Sport in Canada”.^{Footnote 1750}

A participant appearing before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women made a strong claim during its study on women and girls in sport. The participant said: “Systemic change means shining a light into the financial relationships that preserve power and uncovering and dismantling these relationships and systems that protect Canadian sport institutions at the expense of athletes’ lives.”^{Footnote 1751} The Commission shares this view of financial transparency.

Sport organizations as publicly funded entities should not operate in secrecy. They should embrace transparency and proactively and openly share documents related to their use of public funds, including how they spend funds and make financial decisions.

Such transparency would demonstrate responsible management and show that funds, including public funds, are spent appropriately. However, as we have outlined here, such transparency is not yet the reality for most sport organizations.

The Commission maintains its finding that maximizing transparency aligns with the principles of openness and accountability — fundamental principles of good governance and leadership.^{Footnote 1752} Therefore, the Commission remains of the view that sport organizations must be required to post on their website, in addition to the other documents listed in the Canadian Sport Governance Code, the following three documents:

• board meeting minutes
• a document outlining all public funds received with a description of their specific use
• an annual report describing the organization’s activity and progress.

Calls to Action: regular review of governance standards and enhanced standards

The following Calls to Action outline the elements and additional requirements we urge the Government of Canada to consider during its first review of the Canadian Sport Governance Code.

The revisions we call for include expanding the scope of the Code’s application beyond National Sport Organizations to cover National Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes. Revisions should include the five enhancements outlined earlier, diverse representation on boards of directors, athlete representation with voting rights, mandatory training for all board members on inclusion and anti-racism, education on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport, and increased transparency.

Calls to Action

The Commission calls for the following actions to be taken:

74. The Government of Canada shall, in collaboration with governance experts, conduct a review the Canadian Sport Governance Code to ensure it reflects evolving good governance practices.
75. The Government of Canada, as part of its Canadian Sport Governance Code review process, shall amend the Code to expand its application to National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes and add the following mandatory practices:

Board composition

1. Diversity must be included as a board member selection criterion. Diversity includes individuals who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour, individuals who identify as 2SLGBTQI+, and individuals with a disability.
2. The board of directors must include an athlete representative, qualified to do so under the law, to serve as a director with full voting rights. In the context of a sport organization where a Disability sport is integrated or an organization that delivers services to athletes with disabilities, athletes with disabilities should be represented.

Training

3. All board members must receive regular training on inclusion and anti-racism.
4. All board members must receive regular training on preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport based on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. As outlined in Chapter 11, the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Education Program, which would fall within the function of the Centralized Sport Entity once established, would address this requirement.

Transparency

5. Sport organizations must publicly post the following on their website:
   1. minutes of all board meetings
   2. an annual disclosure of all public funds received, along with an accounting of their use
   3. an annual report describing the organization’s activity and progress.

These documents would be added to other documents that the Canadian Sport Governance Code requires sport organizations to publicly post on their website. This includes articles of incorporation or continuance, bylaws, annual financial statements, minutes of members’ meetings, board mandate, all committees’ terms of reference, and an annual report on diversity.^{Footnote 1753}

The need for sport governance standards oversight

Participants’ perspectives on sport governance standards oversight

Participants in our engagement process described a clear lack of oversight over federally funded sport organizations’ governance practices. Some raised concerns that Sport Canada allocates public funds to these organizations without a comprehensive and regular oversight function.

Many also pointed out that while policies, practices, and procedures exist on paper, they are not always put into practice. They said that oversight beyond a check-box exercise is necessary to ensure compliance with good governance requirements.

Participants were in favour of the Commission’s preliminary recommendation calling for regular audits of federally funded sport organizations to ensure the implementation of, and the compliance with, the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Participants told us that that if we want governance to be more than just a voluntary reporting exercise, the system needs an oversight mechanism. This would ensure sport organizations are not only adopting and complying with the governance principles but are also effectively applying these principles in practice.

They suggested that such an oversight mechanism will require governance expertise. It will need to be independent and provide opportunities for athletes and other interested parties to submit anonymous feedback. Participants also noted that support should be provided to sport organizations to assist them in working toward and achieving compliance with governance standards.

Calls to Action: sport governance standards oversight

We recognize that a compliance function was created at Sport Canada in an effort to provide some oversight. We understand that Sport Canada does not have dedicated governance expertise or an oversight mechanism to regularly verify sport organizations’ compliance with prescribed governance requirements. They also do not conduct regular audits of all sport organizations. Given these limitations, compliance assessments are largely based on self-reported confirmation of compliance supported by objective, externally verifiable criteria.

To ensure the implementation of good governance practices, it is critical for the verification process to go beyond self-reporting on compliance and submitting supporting documentation. It is equally important to ensure that when a sport organization is struggling to fulfill its compliance responsibilities it receives guidance and support.

This would ensure that federally funded sport organizations are appropriately and efficiently governed. Ideally, this governance oversight function would fall outside of Sport Canada and reside within the Centralized Sport Entity discussed in Chapter 12 once it is established.

Calls to Action

The Commission calls for the following actions to be taken:

76. The Government of Canada in collaboration with governance experts shall develop and implement an oversight mechanism dedicated to sport governance. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 12 once it is established.
77. The Government of Canada, using the developed oversight mechanism dedicated to sport governance, shall conduct regular audits of federally funded sport organizations to ensure their implementation of and compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity outlined in Chapter 12 once it is established.

The need for a harmonized approach to governance standards at all levels of sport

The Commission’s preliminary recommendations proposed two options to achieve greater uniformity of sport governance standards between the federal and the provincial and territorial levels of sport.

Throughout its engagement activities, the Commission observed a misconception among some participants that National Sport Organizations have authority and control over Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. When asked, National Sport Organizations reiterated time and time again that their scope and mandate are limited to national activities and that they have limited control and authority over their Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. Some also explained that Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations are often members of their organizations and as members they elect the National Sport Organization’s board of directors. Therefore, it can be said that the control is exercised by the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations over the National Sport Organizations and not the reverse.

National Sports Organizations pointed out that this structure gives them little power or control beyond their own governance structure, which makes harmonizing governance standards across the whole system difficult. Participants also told us that there is a “bottleneck” at the provincial and territorial level. Governance changes made at the national level rarely reach the provincial and territorial level, and almost never reach the community level.

The reality remains that Canada’s sport system extends beyond National Sport Organizations to the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, and then to the community or local level. All three levels need to work together to achieve consistency and harmonization.

The Commission suggested in its Preliminary Report that requirements applying to National Sport Organizations should also apply to Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations and the Community Sport Organizations. This would ensure a consistent governance approach across the sport system. Many participants the Commission met advocated for this approach.

However, the Commission recognized that provinces and territories have their own legislation governing not-for-profit organizations and some have governance requirements attached to their provincial and territorial funding. These requirements may prevent a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization from fully adopting the Canadian Sport and Governance Code. Therefore, an amended version of the Code (an “amended version”) tailored to the particularities of each province or territory could be adopted.

Before outlining the Commission’s final findings and Calls to Action on the need for a harmonized approach to governance standards at all levels of sport, we review both options presented in the Preliminary Report and the feedback we received in response to these options.

Option 1: Using spending power to implement uniform governance standards

In our Preliminary Report, option 1 proposed that the Government of Canada require all federally funded sport organizations to adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. It also recommended that National Sport Organizations modify their membership rules so that their members — Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations — must comply with the Code or an amended version as a condition of their membership.

To further expand adoption and compliance, the Commission proposed that the Government of Canada could use its spending power to impose these governance requirements on Provincial or Territorial Sport Organizations and Community Sport Organizations. This could be achieved through funding agreements between the Government of Canada and provincial and territorial governments. These agreements could condition funding intended for Provincial, Territorial, and Community Sport Organizations on compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or an amended version.^{Footnote 1754} The Commission acknowledged that this approach would apply to only Provincial, Territorial, and Community Sport Organizations receiving federal funding, which would limit its overall impact.

To broaden the impact, the Commission proposed that the Government of Canada could encourage provinces and territories to mandate their sport organizations to adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or an amended version. This would be a condition for receiving provincial or territorial funding. Provinces and territories could in turn mandate their funded sport organizations to modify their membership rules to require that all their members (such as Community Sport Organizations) adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or an amended version.

Each of these changes undertaken together would broaden the application of sport governance standards beyond Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations that are members of federally funded National Sport Organizations.

Option 2: Collaborating to establish uniform governance standards

In our Preliminary Report, option 2 proposed a collaborative framework within which federal, provincial, and territorial governments could reach an agreement to enact legislation prescribing similar sport governance standards based on the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Considering the collaborative nature of this approach, the Commission recognized that some provinces or territories might refuse to opt in and choose to legislate in their respective jurisdiction.

Participants’ feedback on harmonizing governance standards

Regarding the first option, we were informed that some multisport service organizations are already finding ways to incentivize their member organizations to adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Similarly, we heard that some National Sport Organizations are also ensuring that governance standards are imposed at lower levels of their sport through memorandums of understandings with their respective Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. While compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code is not necessarily required in these cases, compliance with established good governance standards is. We were also told that such an approach would benefit from National Sport Organizations providing assistance to their member organizations, such as templates, precedents, and training, for example.

Many participants agreed that provincial and territorial governments could support National Sport Organizations in encouraging Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations to adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code or an amended version. However, provincial and territorial governments had diverging opinions on whether National Sport Organizations should require their Provincial and Territorial Sport Organization members to comply with the Code.

Recognizing the particularities of their province or territory, some governments were receptive to the idea of good governance principles for sport organizations at all levels of sport. However, they highlighted the need for flexibility considering the varying capacities of some of their Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, which can in some cases be quite limited. As we suggested earlier, a flexible and perhaps tiered approach could address these concerns.

In addition, some provinces and territories felt that such an approach may be construed as an indirect attempt to regulate sport organizations, which they said was not within the federal government’s jurisdiction. Some provinces indicated that such a “top down” approach simply would not work for them. However, some participants indicated that it would be no different than the funding conditions imposed related to safe sport.

Most provinces and territories recognized the benefits of having harmonized sport governance standards at all levels of sport. They noted among other things that inconsistent federal and provincial and territorial funding conditions often result in sport organizations getting caught in the middle and having difficulty benefiting from the resources available. Provincial and territorial governments were more amenable to a collaborative approach to harmonized sport governance principles. For example, through collaboration provinces and territories could agree on a code or a set of principles.

The Commission also heard other ideas on how the scope of sport governance requirements could be expanded. One suggestion was for all levels of government to require grassroots sport organizations seeking not-for-profit status to be a member of their National, Provincial, or Territorial Sport Organization before incorporation is approved. Another suggestion was to leverage competition sanctioning to enforce compliance. For example, unless it complied with the National Sport Organization’s governance requirements, the organization and its participants would be ineligible to participate and compete in competitions organized and endorsed by the National Sport Organization.

Calls to Action: a harmonized approach to governance standards

The Commission’s finding on the need for a harmonized approach to ensuring governance standards at all levels of sport remains unchanged.

We considered the feedback we received on the options the Preliminary Report proposed to harmonize sport governance. In light of the jurisdictional challenges inherent to the Canadian federated system, we believe that this goal can be achieved only through meaningful collaboration between all levels of government.

The approach we recommend includes components of both options outlined in the Preliminary Report but implemented through an intergovernmental collaborative framework and a phased approach. The long-term objective would be to reach consensus on a pan-Canadian sport governance code. We describe the two phases of our approach and provide our Calls to Action as they relate to each.

Recognizing that a collaborative approach will require time and effort, we call upon National Sport Organizations to encourage their respective members, the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, to adopt and implement the Canadian Sport Governance Code to the extent possible.

Roadmap to implementing a harmonized approach to sport governance standards at all levels of sport

To harmonize sport governance at national, provincial, and territorial levels and expand it to the local level, the Commission envisions a two-phase approach inspired by what has been accomplished in areas of health and childcare. This approach would be a component of the Multilateral Sport Framework described in Chapter 10.

Phase I: the Multilateral Sport Framework — Good governance standards

As we mentioned earlier, many participants, including governments, emphasized the importance of early collaboration from provinces and territories to achieve harmony and consistency of sport governance standards at both levels of government. Most provincial and territorial governments we engaged with were very receptive to working toward harmonized sport governance. However, they also stressed that the imposition of sport governance standards in a “top down” manner would not succeed. The Commission agrees and recognizes that any conditions attached to federal funding must reflect a shared vision between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories for a coordinated and harmonized approach to sport governance.

Therefore, we propose that, as a first step, a shared vision for a harmonized approach to sport governance be developed within the Multilateral Sport Framework described in detail in Chapter 10.

We strongly encourage governments to include “universal governance standards” as part of the agreed-upon criteria that provincial and territorial Safe Sport Programs must meet to qualify for federal funding under the Multilateral Sport Framework.

The universal governance standards criterion should at a minimum specify that provinces and territories each adopt a sport governance code or good governance standards that are mandatory and subject to compliance verification. The code or the standards should be consistent with the Canadian Sport Governance Code and the governance standards it prescribes.

Provinces and territories will then develop a sport governance code or good governance standards applicable within their respective jurisdictions that corresponds to the agreed upon criteria.

As outlined in Chapter 10, once the Multilateral Sport Framework is finalized, we recommend that the Physical Activity and Sport Act be amended to further reinforce the commitments made by all levels of government.

The Government of Canada will then be able to enter into bilateral funding agreements with each province and territory to put the Multilateral Sport Framework into operation. These agreements would include specific conditions on sport governance upon which federal funding shall be allocated towards the province or territory. This would effectively result in provincial and territorial governments requiring their respective sport organizations to adopt and comply with the sport governance standards or sport governance code they developed as a condition of their funding.

The Government of Canada could then require National Sport Organizations to make compliance with provincial or territorial governance standards — or the Canadian Sport Governance Code — a membership condition for their affiliated organizations.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

78. The Government of Canada, as part of the first phase to implementing a harmonized approach to sport governance standard at all levels of sport, shall:
    1. Encourage provincial and territorial governments to include universal governance standards as part of the agreed-upon set of criteria that provincial and territorial Safe Sport Programs shall meet to qualify for federal investments under the Multilateral Sport Framework (as described in Chapter 10). We strongly believe that these standards must be consistent with those contained in the Canadian Sport Governance Code.
    2. Require National Sport Organizations receiving federal funding to change their membership rules to require that their members adopt and comply with the good governance standards or sport governance code required by their provincial or territorial government, once provinces and territories have implemented the agreed-upon criteria under the Multilateral Sport Framework.

Phase II: a Pan-Canadian Sport Governance Code

The Commission believes that the most effective way to strengthen and harmonize sport governance at all levels of sport is for the Government of Canada to develop, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, a pan-Canadian Sport Governance Code.

We understand that this is a considerable undertaking but with time, coordinated effort, meaningful collaboration, and political will from all levels of government, it is attainable. Phase I will generate the necessary momentum and establish a solid foundation that governments can build on to reach a pan-Canadian Sport Governance Code.

Once developed, this Pan-Canadian Sport Governance Code would replace the Canadian Sport Governance Code at the national level and the governance standards or sport governance code developed by each province and territory as prescribed under the Multilateral Sport Framework.

Call to Action

The Commission calls for the following action to be taken:

79. The Government of Canada, as part of the second phase to implementing a harmonized approach to sport governance standards at all levels of sport, shall collaborate with provincial and territorial governments to develop and implement a Pan-Canadian Sport Governance Code at all levels of sport.

Good governance lies at the heart of any healthy, safe, and effective system. It should be welcomed and encouraged by everyone as a shared commitment to uphold the basic principles of transparency, accountability, and fairness.

Federal, provincial, and territorial governments must work together and not in silos. They have demonstrated collaboration is possible in several contexts, including health care, child care, and more recently to break down interprovincial trade barriers. This must be replicated in the context of sport. It is time to recognize the importance of a unified and harmonized approach to sport governance across Canada.