Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Executive Summary

On this page

Chapters 1 and 17 – Introduction and the Commission’s mandate and process

Sport is deeply embedded in Canada’s culture and national identity. Millions of Canadians participate in sport and are inspired by it. Sport contributes to physical and mental health, community well-being, and our country’s cultural and economic strength. But when systems fail to prevent and address maltreatment, sport environments can become places where significant harms occur.

Recent widely publicized revelations have exposed the prevalence of maltreatment across all levels of sport in Canada. Victims and survivors and advocates have courageously shared experiences of abuse, harassment, discrimination, and other forms of harm. Maltreatment has been identified in various sports throughout the country, and long-standing weaknesses in the sport system such as governance failures, structural gaps, and inadequate oversight, have allowed maltreatment to persist, often unchecked. These revelations heightened public concern, drew parliamentary scrutiny, and generated widespread calls for reform to better protect children and hold sport leaders and organizations to account.

In this context, the Government of Canada established the Future of Sport in Canada Commission in May 2024. The Commission was mandated to examine the sport system and make recommendations to:

To fulfill its mandate, the Commission offered a variety of options for participant engagement to individuals, organizations, and other entities that agreed to take part in the Commission’s work (which we collectively refer to as “participants”). All our activities were guided by a victim- and survivor-centred and trauma- and violence-informed framework. The Commission successfully engaged with participants from various backgrounds, including athletes, sport participants, coaches, officials, sport administrators, academics, advocates, and members of the public. We heard from victims and survivors of maltreatment in sport as well as academics, advocates, and experts with specific experience in maltreatment in sport and sport systems in Canada and beyond. We also heard from those with personal experience in sport and physical activity organizations and programs from across Canada.

Over the course of its work, the Commission held 591 meetings and met with over 1,000 individuals. We met with 175 victims and survivors of maltreatment in sport and representatives from 270 sport organizations. Participants shared over 1,400 documents and submissions with us. Chapter 17 further describes the work undertaken by the Commission to fulfill its mandate.

The Commission’s Preliminary Report was published on August 28, 2025. Its preliminary findings and recommendations were considered by participants who provided their feedback at the National Summit on the Future of Sport, held September 8 to 12, 2025, and through other means. We received over 150 post-Preliminary Report submissions. The Commission also conducted a public online survey and analyzed 3,351 responses received.

Building on the Preliminary Report, this Final Report presents our findings and Calls to Action to improve safe sport and the sport system in Canada. It reflects information gathered through engagement activities, including the National Summit on the Future of Sport, written submissions, our independent research, and our public online survey.

In this report, we examine:

Our review would not have been possible without the contributions of the many participants in our engagement process who generously, and often courageously and selflessly, shared their experiences, knowledge, and insights. We are very grateful to each of them. We hope that our work reflects their determination to eliminate a culture of silence that has existed for too long. We recognize the need for fundamental change in the governance and structure of Canadian sport.

Chapter 2 – Why sport is important to Canadians and Canada

A consistent message emerged throughout our activities: sport matters deeply to Canadians. Across regions, cultures, and identities, participants spoke about the essential role that sport plays in their communities and daily lives. Many described the magic of their early sport experiences; the joy of learning new skills; the friendships that grew on fields, playgrounds, and rinks; and the sense of safety and belonging they found in sport.

Collective benefits of sport

Sport is deeply woven into the fabric of Canadian identity and culture. It is a unifying force in Canadian society, bringing people together across cultural, geographic, and social boundaries. It fosters friendships and enhances social cohesion by enabling meaningful interactions among children, adults, and families. The Commission heard compelling stories of how sport brings people together. These relationships transcend winning or losing and create supportive networks that promote belonging. Canadians value the connection, belonging, and shared experiences that sport creates.

The benefits of sport are far-reaching. Sport’s economic impact is substantial. In 2023, sport contributed $7.6 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product, with organized sport alone representing $2.1 billion. Sport drives tourism, supports local businesses, and creates jobs. Volunteers also make essential contributions to the sport sector. In Canada, 27% of adults reported volunteering in an activity related to sport.

As critical infrastructure, sport facilities are essential to delivering sport and physical activity programs and hosting major sport events. The construction and renewal of sport infrastructure stimulate the economy. As spaces where people can come together, these facilities are vital community assets that stimulate local economies, support public health, and foster inclusion.

Sport also plays a significant role in reducing healthcare costs by promoting physical activity and preventing chronic diseases linked to physical inactivity. In 2022, healthcare costs linked to physical inactivity were estimated at $3.9 billion. Increasing participation in sport and physical activity can therefore play a critical role in reducing healthcare expenditures and supporting a healthier population. Participants reiterated that there is a role for sport and physical activity in promoting health and affirmed that we should be talking more about the importance of physical activity.

In addition to its evident economic impacts, sport can also serve as a “soft” form of influence and persuasion in the international context. Indeed, international sporting events can foster international relationships, enhance diplomatic relations, and elevate Canada’s presence on the international stage.

Sport’s impact goes beyond economics and health. Sport is a catalyst for inclusion, diversity, and national pride. Sport provides opportunities for newcomers, Indigenous people, persons with disabilities, and marginalized groups to connect, build relationships, and develop a sense of belonging. Participants with disabilities shared that sport was one of the only places where they felt truly accepted. We also heard that sport fosters social cohesion and can help prevent crime among youth.

High-performance sport plays a distinctive role in Canada’s sport landscape. Elite athletes inspire national pride, serve as role models, and embody values of perseverance, excellence, and resilience. Their achievements on the international stage unite Canadians and strengthen our collective identity. Para and Paralympic sport are important because, among other things, they advance equity and inclusion.

Individual benefits of sport

For individuals of all ages, sport supports lifelong health, well-being, and personal development. Regular physical activity improves cardiovascular health, reduces the risk of chronic disease and encourages wellness. The mental health benefits are equally compelling. Participation in sport can reduce stress, anxiety, and depression while improving self-esteem and overall life satisfaction. Sport participation at a young age can lead to a lasting interest in physical activity and foster a more active lifestyle as an adult, which is critical for personal and public health.

During the Commission’s work, numerous participants highlighted the significant individual benefits of sport for athletes at all levels. They emphasized that sport has the power to save lives. Many told us how they were able to overcome personal challenges through physical activity. We were also told that sport fosters self-care and healing, and that it serves as an important vehicle for self-regulation.

Sport and physical activity promote personal development and inspire individuals to dream. Sport cultivates essential life skills such as teamwork, leadership, communication, discipline, and perseverance. These competencies contribute to personal growth. Participation in sport is also linked to stronger educational outcomes and greater career success. Sport can propel individuals into successful careers and leadership positions.

Sport and physical activity play a particularly crucial role in enhancing the physical, social, emotional, and mental well-being of persons with disabilities. Through sport, participants with disabilities experience feelings of increased independence, belonging, acceptance, and accomplishment. Athletes with disabilities shared how they never thought that they could participate in sport until they found disability sport opportunities.

Specific benefits for Indigenous people

Indigenous people told us that the value of sport extends far beyond physical activity. Sport is a source of healing, cultural connection, and community strength. Participants told us that sport plays a role in preventing early pregnancy, reducing suicide risk, and keeping youth away from gang affiliation, drugs, and alcohol. On numerous occasions, sport was described as a vital outlet to manage stress, grief, and trauma. Many shared that “movement is medicine.”

Sport reinforces identity and pride, strengthens relationships and communities, and supports learning. Sport activities were described as linked to the transmission of values and knowledge. We heard that it brings hope to communities and provides a sense of purpose. Participants shared that sport also fosters connections among Indigenous Nations.

Harnessing the power of sport

Taken together, these individual and collective benefits of sport highlight how investing in sport is investing in Canada’s health, economy, communities, and the future. Sport strengthens society, enriches individual lives, supports inclusion, and builds a healthier and resilient Canada.

Chapter 3 – Breaking the silence on maltreatment: why the promise of sport has escaped so many

Sport in Canada offers many benefits to individuals, families, and communities. Yet, beneath its celebrated image lies a crisis: maltreatment is widespread, systemic, and persistent across all levels of sport in this country. Accounts shared by victims, survivors, and witnesses over recent years have revealed the depth of the crisis. Public reports, media investigations, and parliamentary studies have further exposed how harmful behaviours have been able to flourish in environments where safeguards are weak, oversight is inconsistent, and authority figures often hold unchecked power. The steady emergence of new maltreatment cases across the country that were reported in the media throughout the Commission’s mandate further demonstrates that these issues are not isolated incidents from the past. They are happening now and will continue to happen unless we make significant changes.

Different forms of maltreatment affect participants at every level

The harms experienced by athletes and other participants take many forms, ranging from subtle but damaging daily comments to severe violations of trust and safety. Individuals we met with reported body shaming, physical abuse, psychological abuse, neglect, bullying, hazing, sexual assault, racism, and discrimination. These forms of maltreatment and misconduct often overlap and reinforce each other. They create environments in which safety, dignity, well-being, and autonomy are compromised.

Body shaming is frequently normalized under the guise of performance standards. Many athletes described extreme and intrusive monitoring of their weight, public criticism of their appearance, and rigid food restrictions that produced long-lasting emotional and physical consequences. These practices were often imposed on very young children whose self-image was shaped by adult authority figures.

Physical and psychological abuse, along with neglect, were frequently reported. Individuals described being locked in change rooms as punishment, subjected to verbal attacks, having objects thrown at them, and being denied basic needs such as access to a toilet. Harm inflicted on Indigenous participants, including in residential school sport settings, was also recounted. Several athletes reported that coaches refused to provide medical care or replacement protective gear after injuries, threatened the loss of financial support, and in some cases tampered with equipment to influence performance.

We heard of bullying and hazing in youth sport, school teams, university programs, and high-performance settings. These practices often involved humiliation, forced activities, peer intimidation, and degrading rituals. Hazing was sometimes described as tradition or team bonding, even when it produced significant psychological and sometimes physical harm.

Victims and survivors recounted numerous instances of sexual harm that revealed profound abuses of power. They described grooming, manipulation, and the calculated exploitation of trust by individuals who held significant influence over their athletic pathways. These experiences left deep emotional wounds, and their long-term effects remain severe and enduring.

Racism, exclusion, and marginalization are also widespread and normalized across the sport landscape. Equity-deserving groups, including Indigenous people, racialized individuals, individuals who identify as 2SLGBTQI+, and persons with disabilities, described environments where they were stereotyped, excluded, targeted, or denied equal treatment.

Maltreatment in sport has evolved alongside broader social changes, with social media amplifying traditional abuse and extending practices like hazing into online spaces. These platforms expose athletes to public pressure, intimidation, and humiliation and have enabled widespread cyberbullying, online harassment, and the non-consensual sharing of images. New risks have also emerged through competition manipulation where individuals attempt to influence the outcome of sporting events through bribery, coercion, or threats. This creates serious safety concerns for athletes, coaches, officials, and staff.

Systemic conditions that allow harm to persist

Maltreatment in sport is rooted in broader systemic issues that shape relationships, expectations, and decision making across the sport landscape. Power imbalances are a central factor. Relationships between athletes and coaches, athletes and administrators, and senior and junior athletes often involve significant authority, dependency, and pressure. Many athletes, particularly those in high-performance pathways, rely on a single coach for advancement, financial support, or access to competition. This concentration of authority increases vulnerability to coercion and exploitation.

A long-standing culture of silence further reinforces harmful behaviour. Victims, survivors, and witnesses frequently described a fear of retaliation, loss of opportunities, exclusion, or reputational harm if they spoke out. Some were discouraged from raising concerns. Others saw their attempts to disclose harm dismissed or minimized. Parents, medical professionals, and support staff also described feeling unable to intervene because they feared losing their positions. This silence allows harmful conduct to persist and remain unchecked.

Harmful practices are also normalized by the belief that sport is exempt from the standards that apply in schools, workplaces, or other community settings. This concept, often referred to as sport exceptionalism, fosters sport environments where behaviours that would be unacceptable elsewhere are tolerated or even encouraged. It also encourages the belief that suffering, humiliation, or extreme discipline are necessary for performance.

Structural weaknesses in oversight allow harmful behaviour to continue. The Canadian sport system relies heavily on volunteers, and many organizations lack consistent screening, training, or independent reporting mechanisms. Safeguards are inconsistent across the country. Studies have shown that many sport organizations do not meet funding conditions related to safety in sport. Without external accountability or independent monitoring, individuals who experience maltreatment have limited pathways to seek help or justice.

Findings from studies in Canada and around the world

Research confirms what victims, survivors, and witnesses described to us. International studies show that maltreatment is widespread across sport systems around the world. Psychological harm is the most common form of maltreatment, followed by neglect, physical harm, and sexual harm. These studies also highlight that individuals from minority groups and those participating in high-level sport are at higher risk of experiencing maltreatment.

Canadian studies involving current and former athletes reveal that between 75% and 85% of athletes report experiencing maltreatment during their sporting journey. Consistent with studies conducted in other countries, evidence shows that the most common form of maltreatment among Canadian athletes is psychological harm, followed by neglect, sexual harm, and physical harm. It also reveals that certain identity characteristics, including being a female athlete, a racialized athlete, or a 2SLGBTQI+ athlete, heighten the risks of harm, and that maltreatment increases with the level of sport participation.

Urgent need for coordinated action

The evidence shows that despite growing awareness and policy efforts, maltreatment remains deeply rooted in Canadian sport. It affects individuals at all levels, including at the grassroots. These systemic problems require immediate and sustained government action. Although it is not possible to eliminate maltreatment entirely, governments and sport organizations must work together to strengthen and align prevention and response measures so that all participants can safely experience sport’s benefits.

Chapter 4 – Constitutional framework of our country

Federalism is a defining feature of our country and shapes how legislative authority and responsibilities are distributed across governments. Canada’s constitution divides legislative powers between federal and provincial governments, but sport is not an area of jurisdiction explicitly mentioned in the Constitution Act, 1867. As a result, both levels of government have enacted legislation that reflects their constitutional authority to support, stimulate, or regulate sport programs.

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction to make laws in relation to education, public land, municipal institutions, property and civil rights, and general matters of a merely local or private nature. Thus, provincial and territorial jurisdiction generally allows for the development, implementation, operation, and support of programs and regulatory standards of health, safety, and integrity in sport.

When it comes to the federal government, scholars have suggested that Parliament may enact federal legislation related to sport based on its residual authority to make “Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada,” and on Parliament’s jurisdiction in trade and commerce, taxation, the military, shipping and inland fisheries, immigration and citizenship, and criminal law. Others have noted that the federal government may assert an interest whenever an issue is deemed to be of some national or international interest. These issues have not been definitively addressed by the courts, and there remains uncertainty about whether these heads of power could allow federal intervention in sport beyond the spending power.

There is no doubt that the federal government may provide support for sport through the exercise of its spending power. As such, the federal government primarily supports sport through funding and collaborative frameworks. It also plays a role in supporting Canada’s participation in international competitions.

There have been numerous instances of intergovernmental collaborations over the years in sport, physical activity, and recreation. Governments have entered various agreements, adopted notable national frameworks and policies such as the Canadian Policy Against Doping in Sport (1991), and successfully collaborated to host major international games.

Although jurisdictional tensions sometimes arise, sustained intergovernmental collaboration has enabled progress and the development of national sport initiatives. It demonstrates that constitutional complexities can be effectively managed through collaboration and coordinated action.

Chapter 5 – Roles and responsibilities in the Canadian sport system: a fragmented framework

The Canadian sport “system” is multifaceted and involves a broad range of players, funders, and participants. Many institutions, including different levels of government—as well as countless sport organizations—share responsibilities for sport and physical activity. For many Canadians, the sport system starts and ends in schools and playgrounds, but for others it extends to neighbourhood arenas, playing fields, and competitions within Canada and abroad. While many institutions are part of what can be called a system, that system is frequently described as fractured, fragmented, or even non-existent.

Federal, provincial and territorial, and municipal governments

Governments at all levels shape sport, although in different ways. The federal government, through Sport Canada, develops national sport policies, provides funding to national organizations and athletes, supports participation in major international events, and promotes safe and inclusive sport environments. Through the Public Health Agency of Canada, the federal government also contributes to the sport and physical activity landscape by supporting population-level initiatives that promote physical activity. The Physical Activity and Sport Act sets out the federal government’s policy goals for sport and physical activity.

Provincial and territorial governments can influence sport through education systems, sport and recreation facility development, funding for sport and physical activity, and legislation, among other policy tools. Municipalities own and operate most sport and recreation infrastructure in Canada and deliver or support community programming.

Participants in our engagement process noted the absence of strong leadership and vision from the federal government. They described how frequent shifts in political priorities have contributed to erratic policy development, outdated frameworks, and a lack of long-term planning. There is a common perception that the government is reactive rather than proactive. This approach results in a Canadian sport system that has developed over decades in an ad hoc way in response to crises, pressures, and shifting political priorities.

The Canadian sport system is complex, in part because it involves all levels of government. Different forums exist to facilitate intergovernmental collaboration on sport, physical activity, and recreation matters. These include the Ministers Conferences which bring together the federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for sport, physical activity, and recreation; the Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council; and the Federal-Provincial/Territorial Sport Committee.

Intergovernmental collaboration has produced important outcomes, such as the endorsement of the Red Deer Declaration — For the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport in 2019 and of the Canadian Sport Policy 2025–2035. However, participants expressed concern that collaboration is inconsistent and often ineffective. They described a lack of communication and integrated leadership between provinces and territories and the federal government on matters related to sport and physical activity.

National, Provincial and Territorial, and Community Sport Organizations

Numerous sport organizations operate at every level of sport and are responsible for developing and delivering programs, including Para and Disability sport programs.

At the international level, International Sport Federations (also referred to as “International Federations”) serve as the global governing body for one or more sports or distinct sport disciplines. Among their other responsibilities, these organizations establish and enforce rules for particular sports and organize international competitions. Some International Sport Federations are also responsible for the governance and development of Para sport.

Canada’s National Sport Organizations are the national governing bodies for their respective sports. They select national teams, oversee high-performance programs, and promote and develop their sport across the country, among other responsibilities. Some National Sport Organizations govern their Para sport equivalent, while others are non-integrated National Sport Organizations that govern only Para sport.

Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations are the governing bodies for their sport within their province or territory. Their responsibilities are similar to those of their National Sport Organizations, but they are carried out within their respective province or territory. Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations can govern multiple Para sports, a single Para sport, or both Para and non-Para sport. Most of these organizations are members of their respective National Sport Organizations.

Community Sport Organizations deliver grassroots sport and physical activity programs. They often offer recreational-level sport programming, and they may offer a combination of competitive and high-performance programs. At the community level, Para and Disability sport programs are delivered in both integrated and non-integrated environments. While Community Sport Organizations are generally affiliated with a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization, this is not always the case. Many community-level sport organizations and their participants function beyond the oversight of National, Provincial or Territorial Sport Organizations.

Participants emphasized that the proliferation of sport organizations at all levels has contributed significantly to the fragmentation of the Canadian sport system. They explained that there are simply too many organizations. This leads to duplicated efforts, inconsistent approaches, and confusion about roles and responsibilities.

Significant structural challenges within National, Provincial and Territorial, and Community Sport Organizations include widespread misalignment, inconsistent priorities, and limited coordination across all levels. The relationship between National Sport Organizations and their member organizations and clubs was frequently described as broken. Para and Disability sport organizations face comparable, yet more complex challenges with issues of alignment and operational efficiency.

Participants also noted that, in many cases, a lack of collaboration among National Sport Organizations themselves has further fragmented resources, created inefficiencies, and contributed to policy misalignments. They observed that many organizations require similar services — such as human resources, information technology (IT), insurance, accommodations, and travel — yet continue to procure or develop them independently, even though these functions could be delivered more efficiently by a shared provider.

We heard how sport organizations are facing serious funding strains, with resources described as insufficient, unpredictable, and often provided too late to support responsible planning. We also heard significant concerns about governance and integrity within the system, including heavy reliance on volunteers who may lack training. Participants told us about declining volunteer capacity and situations that give rise to real or perceived conflicts of interest.

Multisport Service Organizations

Multisport Service Organizations play an essential supporting role in the Canadian sport system. Unlike sport organizations that deliver programs directly to athletes, these organizations provide specialized services that strengthen sport across all levels. Their work ranges from organizing major games, offering coaching and education programs, promoting access to sport and physical activity, providing advocacy, and administering dispute-resolution and sport-integrity processes.

At the national level, these organizations include the Coaching Association of Canada, the Canadian Olympic Committee, the Canadian Paralympic Committee, Commonwealth Sport Canada, Own the Podium, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (called Sport Integrity Canada as of January 2026), and the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, among many others. Each organization has its own purpose and mandate, often created to fill gaps in leadership, support underserved communities, or provide system-wide expertise.

Throughout the Commission’s engagement process, participants expressed concerns about the overall structure and functioning of Multisport Service Organizations. Many described a landscape crowded with too many organizations operating independently, often with overlapping roles and unclear mandates. This has resulted in duplication of services and inefficiencies—particularly in education, training, certification, and administrative support.

Participants also raised concerns that some Multisport Service Organizations exert too much influence over how sport programs are delivered. Own the Podium was frequently cited as an example. While some praised its contribution to international performance, others criticized its strong emphasis on medal outcomes, and its influence over sport organizations’ priorities. Some criticized Own the Podium for placing a disproportionate emphasis on Olympic athletes to the detriment of Paralympic athletes.

Overall, the Multisport Service Organizations model was described as disjointed, inefficient, and overly complex. This system is administratively heavy because all these organizations are required to have their own governance structures, services, and staff. These issues led some participants to suggest that these organizations should be centralized or consolidated into a single entity.

Other organizations

Schools, colleges and universities, not-for-profit organizations, private and for-profit sport organizations, and professional leagues also shape how Canadians access sport. Schools introduce children to physical activity, though the time committed to physical education varies widely and extracurricular sport relies heavily on teacher volunteers. Universities and colleges offer competitive and recreational programs. Many community-based not-for-profit organizations offer inclusive and culturally grounded programming, but they face limited resources.

Participants shared significant concerns about the rapid growth and influence of private for-profit sport organizations. Many described these providers as expensive, largely unregulated, and operating outside the structures and expectations of the broader sport system. We heard that many of these private organizations function with limited oversight, inconsistent safety practices, and approaches that place financial interests ahead of participant well-being.

We learned that National Sport Organizations have neither the resources to monitor or oversee clubs, nor the mechanisms to collaborate or communicate with them. The lack of relationship between National Sport Organizations and private clubs, and the increasing numbers of private clubs, threaten to further fragment the sport system.

Canada’s sport system is broken

The Canadian sport system is complex, inconsistent, and fragmented. We heard about a lack of federal government leadership to lead the sport system, insufficient intergovernmental collaboration, erratic policy development, inadequate funding, and political cycles that lead to short-term thinking.

Many participants struggled to describe a cohesive Canadian sport system. The proliferation of organizations and overlapping mandates has led to inefficiencies, duplications, a lack of alignment, and confusion. Conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency, and limited oversight of sport organizations have further undermined trust in the sport system and contributed to the safe sport crisis.

Chapter 6 – Indigenous-led sport and the Canadian sport system: structures, interactions and reconciliation

Our review of Canada’s sport ecosystem would not have been complete without considering the realities of Indigenous-led sport and Indigenous people’s interactions with the “mainstream” sport system in Canada.

Role of sport in Indigenous cultures

The relationship between Indigenous people and sport is deeply interwoven with Indigenous cultures. Sport serves as a source of healing, pride, and community connection. In fact, movement is described as medicine: it brings communities together, it fosters a sense of pride in Indigenous identity, and it provides a vehicle for language and knowledge transmission.

However, to better understand the challenges and struggles that Indigenous people and communities face when engaging with the Canadian sport structures, we need to understand the context in which the Canadian sport system emerged and continues to operate. Settler colonialism and anti-Indigenous racism shaped the Canadian sport system and created systemic barriers that persist today.

Despite these challenges, Indigenous people and communities have demonstrated resilience and advocated for the advancement of an Indigenous-led sport system, Indigenous-led games, and a mainstream sport system that is inclusive and culturally safe.

Indigenous governments and communities

First Nations, Inuit, and Métis governments, councils, communities, and organizations deliver sport and physical activity programs in their communities. There are also several Indigenous-led organizations that play a role in the sport system, including the Aboriginal Sport Circle, the 13 Provincial and Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies, and the National Association of Friendship Centres.

Indigenous games also play an important role. They have been described as a means to preserve and revive cultural heritage, and they serve as a vehicle for reconciliation in Canada. The North American Indigenous Games and the Arctic Winter Games were the most often identified in our engagement process as being highly significant to Indigenous people. However, we recognize that there are other Indigenous games, events, and organizations that contribute to Indigenous sport.

Throughout its engagement process, the Commission heard stories of both success and ongoing struggles from Indigenous people. Although Indigenous athletes and coaches are celebrated as role models, many participants emphasized the need for greater representation, recognition, and support. Indigenous participants also shared challenges related to affordability, lack of facilities and infrastructure, and the lack of culturally safe sport environments in the “mainstream” sport system.

Indigenous rights and reconciliation

Participants identified four key documents as highly relevant regarding Indigenous communities and sport in Canada:

In June 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued their multi-volume Final Report which included Ten Principles for Reconciliation and 94 Calls to Action. These Calls to Action were directed to all sectors of Canadian society with the objective of promoting and advancing reconciliation between Canadians and Indigenous Peoples. Among these Calls to Action, five focused on fostering reconciliation through sport and physical activity (Calls to Action 87 to 91).

Call to Action 87 is about providing public education that tells the national story of Indigenous athletes in history. In response, the Government of Canada reports that implementing this education is in progress. For example, the government refers to investments made to support the Aboriginal Sport Circle to deliver and promote the Tom Longboat Awards and the National Indigenous Coaching Awards.

The Government of Canada considers Call to Action 88 on ensuring the long-term development of Indigenous athletes and the continued support for the North American Indigenous Games as complete. In its response to this call, the government points to its investments in supporting team preparation and travel for the North American Indigenous Games, ongoing funding, and the funding framework in place for hosting the games.

As a first step toward fulfilling Call to Action 89 which relates to required amendments to the Physical Activity and Sport Act, the federal government reported that it invested in the development of a National Indigenous Sport Strategy. The Aboriginal Sport Circle has completed this strategy and shared it with Sport Canada.

Call to Action 90 calls on the federal government to ensure that national sports policies, programs, and initiatives are inclusive of Indigenous Peoples. The government reports that investments have been made to support Indigenous youth and sport initiatives, to enable the Aboriginal Sport Circle to assume a leadership role in Indigenous sport development, and to support the leadership of Provincial and Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies. The federal government notes that it has also supported National Sport Organizations and Multisport Service Organizations to promote the long-term development of Indigenous athletes.

Finally, Call to Action 91 calls on officials and countries hosting international sporting events to ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ territorial protocols are respected, and local Indigenous communities are engaged in planning such events. In response, the Government of Canada reports that it reminds partners of Call to Action 91 by including it in the document shared with bid and host organizations. They also made financial investments to support Call to Action 91.

During our engagement activities, Indigenous people and communities shared that, although some progress has been made in responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action related to sport, significant gaps remain. They emphasized that Sport Canada has not mandated National Sport Organizations to address Calls to Action 87 to 91. Participants raised the lack of permanent funding for the North American Indigenous Games and the need to revise the Physical Activity and Sport Act to align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. They also emphasized the importance of ensuring Indigenous representation, protocols, and partnerships at all national and international sporting events held in Canada.

Following the publication of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report, in 2016 the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls began its work investigating the mass disappearance of Indigenous women and girls. It concluded that their disappearances and Canada’s inaction in responding was genocide. The inquiry released its final report in 2019 with 231 individual Calls for Justice directed at governments, institutions, social service providers, industries, and Canadians generally. Calls for Justice 3.1 and 7.3 related to sport and physical activity. They call on the government to ensure that the rights to health and wellness of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people are protected, and to support Indigenous-led prevention initiatives in the areas of health and community awareness.

To implement the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice related to sport, the federal government created a dedicated stream of the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities component of the Sport Support Program. This stream funds Indigenous-designed sport and physical activity initiatives that create safe, culturally grounded opportunities specifically for Indigenous women, girls, and gender-diverse people.

The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a comprehensive, international human-rights instrument addressing the rights of Indigenous people around the world. Canada has taken steps toward implementing this declaration by adopting the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (2021). The Act provides a roadmap for the Government of Canada and Indigenous people to work together to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Commonwealth (Lekwungen) Sport Declaration on Truth, Reconciliation and Partnership with Indigenous Peoples is an international declaration with 10 calls to action. It aims to respect, protect, and promote the rights and opportunities of Indigenous Peoples through sport. Sport organizations, institutions, governments, game organizers, individuals, and Indigenous Peoples are encouraged to work together to support and implement the declaration’s spirit and actions. The Government of Canada supported its creation by providing funding to assist the working group in its development.

Findings and Calls to Action: Indigenous people and sport

Following our review of Indigenous-led sport and Indigenous people’s interactions with the “mainstream” sport system in Canada, the Commission recognizes the settler colonialism context in which the Canadian sport system emerged and continues to operate today. The Commission further acknowledges the complexity of the Indigenous-led sport system and its relationship with the “mainstream” sport system. Although it is clear to the Commission that some progress has been made through Indigenous-led initiatives and some government investment, gaps remain in funding, infrastructure, inclusive and culturally safe sport environments, and meaningful engagement.

The Commission believes that all involved within the “mainstream” sport system have an important role to play for true and meaningful reconciliation by engaging and collaborating constructively with Indigenous people. Our findings make it clear how important it is for Indigenous people to exercise control over how sport serves them and their communities — and that such decisions must be made by and for Indigenous people.

The Commission recognizes that the Government of Canada has made progress in addressing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls’ Calls for Justice related to sport and physical activity. However, this work must continue.

For these reasons, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada to continue the work to fulfill its commitment to respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action 87 to 91. We further call upon all levels of government to respect the principle of Indigenous self-determination in their decision-making processes related to Indigenous people in sport. We also call on governments to take proactive steps to engage with Indigenous people to ensure their meaningful participation in these processes. To extend the scope of these calls to action, all levels of government are called upon to encourage other sport participants within their jurisdiction to meaningfully engage with Indigenous people to ensure their voices are present and heard. Finally, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada to include Indigenous perspectives in all measures it takes to implement the Calls to Action made in this report.

Chapter 7 – Barriers to sport and physical activity in Canada

Although sport and physical activity are central to the health, identity, and social fabric of Canada, significant barriers persist and limit participation. Despite long-standing commitments from all levels of government, several barriers prevent many people in Canada, especially those from equity-deserving groups, from accessing and benefiting from sport and physical activity.

National data demonstrate that fewer than half of adults meet recommended physical activity levels, and only one in five teenagers is sufficiently active. Participation in sport remains a serious area of weakness despite continuing recommendations that it should be meaningfully addressed, and equity-deserving groups continue to be significantly under-represented in sport and physical activity programs.

Findings and Calls to Action: financial barriers to sport and physical activity

We found that financial barriers at all levels of the sport system are widespread and worsening. We learned that many can no longer afford to participate in sport activities. The rising cost of registration, equipment, and travel, combined with the privatization of sport and the prevalence of “pay-to-play” models, has made participation increasingly exclusive, particularly for those in lower-income households and remote communities.

To address these barriers and promote sport participation, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, to examine all available fiscal, programmatic, and administrative tools to address barriers and increase participation. This could include exploring targeted subsidies for youth and families and tax exemptions on essential equipment.

Findings and Calls to Action: sport infrastructure and programs

Canada faces a chronic shortage of adequate, safe, and accessible sport facilities and programs. Many existing facilities are in urgent need of repairs and upgrades to ensure that they are accessible and safe and that they meet modern-day standards. Across the country, the scarcity of facilities limits opportunities for participation at all levels. We recognize that remote and Indigenous communities experience even greater challenges with accessing facilities. Access to existing municipal and school facilities is often limited by costs, administrative complexity, or a lack of coordination.

To address these challenges, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, to develop a national sport infrastructure strategy to determine which facilities need to be built or renovated. The strategy should be supported by shared data to assess facility needs and by coordinated planning to increase community access to existing public facilities. We believe that renewed federal investment is required to modernize aging facilities, improve accessibility, and build new multi-use spaces that support both community and high-performance sport. We also call on the federal government to establish a dedicated sport infrastructure program to provide stable, long-term funding and to earmark a portion of federal infrastructure transfers specifically for sport infrastructure.

Barriers to sport and physical activity for equity-deserving groups

While important progress has been made in making sport more accessible, persistent structural and systemic barriers continue to disproportionately limit the participation of equity-deserving groups, including women and girls, persons with disabilities, racialized individuals, newcomers, 2SLGBTQI+ persons, and Indigenous people.

Throughout our engagement activities, we were consistently informed about the significant barriers that members of equity-deserving groups face when they seek to participate fully in sport and physical activity. These barriers are varied and intersecting, and while not exhaustive, the examples we list here reflect the systemic, structural, and individual challenges that continue to limit access, inclusion, and safety for many participants across Canada.

Women and girls continue to encounter unwelcoming and male-dominated sport environments. We heard that quality experiences for girls are often lacking. While programs for girls have expanded, there remain limited grassroots opportunities for women aged 18 and older. It was also noted that pregnancy and parenting are not well accommodated within the sport system.

Persons with disabilities face discrimination and long-standing systemic barriers, including inaccessible facilities, limited adapted equipment, and a lack of programs and specialized coaches. Many programs are led by non-disabled decision makers whose practices might not reflect the needs of athletes with disabilities.

Racialized people continue to experience racism and discrimination in sport. We heard accounts of racial slurs, micro-aggressions, and tokenism, alongside a lack of representation among coaches and leaders. Statistics Canada data show that racialized participants were three times as likely to report experiencing unfair treatment, racism or discrimination in community sports.

Newcomers face barriers such as language challenges, unfamiliar registration processes, transportation difficulties, and financial constraints. Registration systems are often complex and available in only English or French. Many newcomers noted that navigating unfamiliar sport structures makes participation difficult.

2SLGBTQI+ individuals continue to encounter exclusion, discrimination, and unsafe conditions in sport. We heard that homophobic and transphobic language remains common in sport environments. Transgender and gender-diverse people experience transphobia, including discriminatory comments and acts of violence. Many 2SLGBTQI+ participants ultimately leave sport because they do not feel safe.

Indigenous people continue to experience overt and systemic racism in sport. The lack of culturally relevant programming or sport facilities in most Indigenous communities, the cost of participation, and the high costs of travel also limit access to sport. Indigenous communities have highlighted these barriers for years.

Findings and Calls to Action: improving equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility in sport

The Commission recognizes that many newcomers and Canadians from equity-deserving groups continue to face additional intersecting barriers to sport participation. Harassment, discrimination, and systemic inequalities all contribute to creating unsafe sport environments and limiting access to sport.

A continued focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion is therefore required to ensure that sport and physical activity are safe and accessible for all. The Commission is of the view that coordinated national action that centres the voices and experiences of equity-deserving groups is needed to improve access to sport for equity-deserving groups.

We call on the Government of Canada to create a national strategy on equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in sport and physical activity, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, and equity-deserving groups. The Commission also calls on the federal government to collaborate with equity-deserving groups to develop and implement mandatory standards on equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility that all federally funded sport organizations must follow. Consideration should be given to board and staff representation, training and education, and inclusive policies. Finally, the Commission calls for the federal government to continue to support and expand initiatives to advance equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in sport and physical activity. These responsibilities should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity (outlined in Chapter 12).

Canada’s sport system has extraordinary potential to advance national well-being, strengthen communities, and support youth development. Realizing this potential requires decisive and coordinated action. It is crucial to address the barriers that limit access to sport and physical activity and prevent optimal participation for many Canadians.

Chapter 8 — Improving safe sport in Canada: the Commission’s proposed approach

Defining safe sport

Although the term “safe sport” has emerged internationally and in Canada only in recent years, the principles behind it have existed for decades. However, progress in advancing safe sport has been slow. This is partly because there has been no broadly accepted definition of safe sport or a framework for advancing it.

Different international and Canadian organizations define safe sport in varying ways, but all of them emphasize environments free from maltreatment, abuse, harassment, and discrimination. Definitions differ in who they focus on (some focus on athletes, others on all sport participants) and whether the emphasis is solely on preventing harm or on broader well-being and human rights.

The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, which was developed in direct response to the 2019 Red Deer Declaration and the 2019 National Safe Sport Summit that followed, came into effect in 2022. Its purpose is to advance “a respectful sport culture that delivers quality, inclusive, accessible, welcoming and safe sport experiences.”

Also in 2022, Canadian researchers developed a safe sport framework based on input from the sport community. They identified three core components to safe sport: physical/environmental safety, relational safety, and programs that promote inclusion, fairness, and positive development.

Safe sport in this report

Participants we spoke with during our engagement process highlighted the absence of a commonly agreed-upon definition of safe sport across the sport system. We learned that the meaning of safe sport differs for Indigenous Peoples and equity-deserving groups because their experiences, histories, and cultural contexts affect how they understand safety and well-being. Other participants noted a connection between injury and maltreatment. We also observed that the concept of safe sport has recently taken on some negative connotations.

For the purposes of the Commission’s mandate, we adopted the definition of safe sport that is articulated in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. That is, a safe sport environment is one that is free from all forms of maltreatment and one that treats every individual with dignity and respect. The Universal Code of Conduct defines maltreatment as psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, along with neglect and grooming.

However, in this Report, we use the word “maltreatment” more broadly to encompass not only these forms of maltreatment, but also all other behaviours that are prohibited under the Universal Code of Conduct (including boundary transgressions, discrimination, exposing someone to the risk of maltreatment, aiding or abetting misconduct, failing to report maltreatment or other prohibited behaviours, making false allegations, interfering with investigations, and retaliating).

Why safe sport is important

Through our work, we came to realize that maltreatment in sport reaches far beyond individual harm. It undermines athletes’ sense of safety and belonging and weakens the foundations of the sport system itself. When abuse occurs or is ignored or handled without transparency, public trust in sport institutions erodes, participation declines, and parents become less willing to involve their children in organized sport. As trust in the system decreases, so does the pipeline of future athletes, coaches, and volunteers. This not only weakens the likelihood of competitive success but also the social and community-building power of sport itself.

A truly safe sport system is one in which every participant, regardless of age, gender, background, or level of ability, feels safe, respected, included, and supported. A safe sport environment is one where individuals can engage fully, learn new skills, develop friendships, grow in confidence, and experience the joy of movement without fear of harm or discrimination.

The social value of sport is immense: it builds character, strengthens communities, improves physical and mental health, and fosters national pride. However, these benefits can be fully realized only when safety and human rights are a fundamental requirement, not an option.

Our approach to safe sport: Prevention, response and support

Because Canada’s sport system spans both federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions, meaningful collaboration across all levels of government and among sport organizations is necessary to reduce the occurrence of maltreatment.

The Commission’s proposed approach is built on three interconnected priorities—prevention, response, and support—which together form the foundation for a sustainable safe sport framework. Prevention aims to proactively reduce risks, response focuses on harmonized, effective, and accountable processes for addressing maltreatment, and support ensures appropriate assistance for those affected.

Chapter 9 — Safe sport standards in Canada: structure, limitations, and gaps

Governments and sport organizations have created a wide range of policies to support safe sport in Canada. These policies aim to prevent maltreatment, abuse, harassment, and discrimination, and to ensure respectful and safe environments for all participants.

National safe sport standards

The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, first published in 2019, is the principal national safe sport policy. It defines and prohibits maltreatment (psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as neglect and grooming), and other prohibited behaviours such as discrimination, boundary violations, and failure to report maltreatment. It also establishes a range of sanctions, from apology to permanent ineligibility to participate in sport.

Since 2022, all federally funded National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes must adopt the Universal Code of Conduct, now administered through the Canadian Safe Sport Program. These organizations also maintain their own codes of conduct that set behavioural expectations for individuals involved with the organization and may address matters beyond safe sport, such as recreational drug use during sport activities.

Provincial and territorial safe sport standards

The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport can also apply at provincial, territorial, and local levels through a “flow-through” system. This means that National Sport Organizations require their Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations to adopt their policies, which are then passed on to local clubs and associations. Organizations outside this hierarchy, such as universities, can choose to adopt the Universal Code of Conduct voluntarily.

Provincial and territorial approaches vary widely. Quebec is the only jurisdiction with legislation requiring sport bodies to adopt safety regulations. British Columbia and Nunavut have universal codes or policies tied to government funding. Several provinces and territories require sport organizations to develop their own policies as a condition of funding, while others impose no mandatory standards at all.

Community safe sport standards

At the grassroots level, Community Sport Organizations often adopt their own policies, though they are generally not required to do so. Quebec remains an exception. All sports bodies there, including leagues, clubs, and associations, are legally required to adopt safety regulations. In other provinces and territories, some local organizations must adopt safe sport policies because of their affiliation with a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization.

The Universal Code of Conduct’s content, reach, and custody

Participants in our engagement process described the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport as overly legalistic, difficult to understand, and missing important areas. They identified cyberbullying, digital exploitation, child protection, Para-specific definitions, and mechanisms to hold organizations accountable as missing. Many viewed it as either too broad or insufficiently adaptable to high-performance, community, or youth sport settings.

Concerns were also raised about its limited reach because relatively few organizations below the national level have adopted it. Participants expressed differing views on how to broaden its application. Some favoured downward adoption through the sport hierarchy and others called for provincial and territorial leadership. Opinions also diverged regarding custody of the Code. Some supported the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport due to its expertise, while others argued that the body enforcing the Code should not also be responsible for updating it.

A need for uniform safe sport standards

Participants noted major inconsistencies in safe sport policies across levels of sport and jurisdictions, emphasizing the need for a shared understanding of maltreatment and consistent standards “from coast to coast to coast.” They supported the development of clear and harmonized expectations and remedies for all participants, regardless of sport or level.

Lack of expertise, awareness, and consideration for under-represented groups

Sport organizations widely reported lacking the expertise and resources to develop effective safe sport policies and expressed interest in standardized templates or external guidance. Many noted that existing policies are poorly communicated, rarely read, and unevenly enforced, especially at the community level.

Participants stressed the need for policies that apply beyond the field of play, including during travel and on online platforms. They also emphasized that safe sport frameworks must be shaped through an Indigenous lens and better tailored to the needs of athletes with disabilities whose experiences and realities are not adequately reflected in current standards.

Chapter 10 — Safe sport complaint mechanisms: responding to maltreatment and supporting those affected

Safe sport complaint mechanisms in Canada consist of a diverse array of national programs, provincial and territorial mechanisms, and Independent Third Parties. These vary widely in structure, scope, and reporting processes.

The Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and the former Abuse-Free Sport Program

Following the 2019 Red Deer Declaration, governments committed to exploring a mechanism to report and monitor harassment, abuse, and discrimination in sport. At the 2019 National Safe Sport Summit, representatives from across the sport system agreed that an independent body should administer what would become the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

This led to the creation of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner, housed within the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. Launched in June 2022, the Abuse-Free Sport Program empowered the Office to receive and investigate complaints under the Universal Code of Conduct, while decisions on violations and sanctions were handled by the Director of Sanctions and Outcomes and review and appeals were handled by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada’s Dispute Resolution Secretariat.

The Office’s jurisdiction depended on organizations opting in through an agreement and collecting consent forms from all participants. Most program signatories were federally funded National Sport Organizations and Multisport Service Organizations, which were required to join as of April 1, 2023, as a condition of funding. The Office could also conduct Sport Environment Assessments for program signatories.

Through our engagement process, participants identified several major shortcomings in the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. For example, its jurisdiction was limited to participants who had provided consent within participating sport organizations, and its high costs discouraged many provincial, territorial, and grassroots sport organizations from joining. The requirement for explicit consent created significant administrative burdens for sport organizations.

Users also described the complaint process as opaque, slow, and confusing, with inconsistent investigations, weak communication, and inadequate trauma-informed support. We were told that sanctions were not consistently implemented, and the adversarial model offered few restorative or educational resolution options. While the program was an important first step toward responding to maltreatment, it was launched quickly during a national crisis and lacked the phased implementation that experts recommended.

The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and the Canadian Safe Sport Program

In 2024, responsibility for the national complaint mechanism moved from the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, an independent National Multisport Service Organization incorporated under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. The change was intended to ensure the national safe sport program’s independence from the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada. Before assuming its new role, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport updated the program rules based on community feedback and published the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules in January 2025. The Canadian Safe Sport Program launched in April 2025.

Under the program, the Centre independently administers and enforces the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, including report intake, investigation, decisions, and sanctions. Reviews and appeals continue to be heard by the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada.

Like its predecessor, the program operates on a contract-based model requiring sport organizations to adopt it through an agreement and participants have to provide written consent. Federally funded National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes must adopt the Canadian Safe Sport Program as a condition of Sport Canada funding. Unlike the former Abuse-Free Sport, the Canadian Safe Sport Program is not available to provincial, territorial, or community sport organizations, and the Centre does not currently conduct Sport Environment Assessments.

Participants in our activities generally welcomed the transition to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, seeing its independence from the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada as an opportunity to rebuild trust. Early feedback was largely positive. Participants noted clearer program rules, defined timelines for steps in the report process, stronger communication, enhanced trauma-informed practices, and more flexible ways to resolve reports. They also appreciated having one independent administrator for the entire process and a system fully funded by the Government of Canada.

However, some concerns remain. Specifically, the Canadian Safe Sport Program still applies only to federally funded national-level organizations, meaning most cases fall outside its scope. Participants also pointed to ongoing challenges related to its continued reliance on individual consent, the absence of Sport Environment Assessments, the need for stronger legislative authority, and the risk of frivolous or bad-faith complaints. Some also raised concerns about the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s dual role in both anti-doping and safe sport.

Ongoing reliance on Independent Third-Party Mechanisms

Because the Canadian Safe Sport Program only covers only a narrow segment of the sport system, National Sport Organizations employ Independent Third-Party Mechanisms to handle reports of maltreatment involving individuals who fall outside of this program’s scope. Independent Third Parties are external individuals or agencies (such as law firms) hired to independently review maltreatment complaints and conduct investigations, or to direct complaints to a competent authority. Their jurisdiction is set out in the sport organization’s discipline and complaints policy.

Participants told us that although Independent Third-Party Mechanisms are widely used across the sport system, they suffer from major shortcomings. Sport organizations heavily rely on them because national programs cannot handle all complaints, but these services are extremely costly, sometimes reaching several million dollars per year. Participants also stressed that there is no oversight, licensing, or required training for these third-party providers. This leads to inconsistent quality, limited expertise in sensitive cases, and real or perceived conflicts of interest, since the same contractors are hired and paid by the sport organizations whose cases they handle.

Many viewed these mechanisms as ineffective, with unclear, inconsistent, and overly complex procedures. They reported poor communication, lengthy delays, inadequate due-process protections, and insufficient support for complainants and respondents who often cannot afford legal representation. Participants also pointed to problems such as administrative investigations taking place during ongoing criminal matters, weak enforcement of sanctions, and breaches of confidentiality. They also described a lack of cultural awareness, particularly for Indigenous communities, who emphasized the need for culturally grounded, restorative approaches. Despite some positive experiences, most participants felt that the current Independent Third-Party system lacks fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Inconsistent provincial and territorial approaches

After endorsing the 2019 Red Deer Declaration, federal, provincial and territorial governments agreed, at the 2022 Conference of Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity & Recreation, to implement an Independent Third-Party Mechanism or join the then Abuse-Free Sport Program by 2023.

Several provinces and territories have implemented, or are working to implement, a centralized mechanism to address maltreatment. However, this is not the case in every jurisdiction. More precisely:

In jurisdictions without centralized systems, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations hire Independent Third Parties to act as their own private complaint mechanisms. Other than Quebec’s recreation and sports integrity ombudsman who is empowered to hear complaints at all levels of sport, existing provincial and territorial centralized complaint mechanisms have limited reach at the grassroots level. They generally apply to only individuals registered with sport organizations that are members of a Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization affiliated with the provincial or territorial Multisport Service Organization, which is required for government funding. In some cases, local-level sport organizations may be required to refer their complaints to the Independent Third Party hired by the Provincial or Territorial Sport Organization they are affiliated with.

Participants overwhelmingly felt that complaints should not be handled internally by sport organizations or by third parties they hire. They emphasized the need for a fully independent, simple, and consistent national complaint mechanism. Many reported that the current decentralized system is confusing, inconsistent, and difficult to navigate, and urged the creation of a unified process with clear rules and consistent sanctions.

Findings and Calls to Action: Canada needs a coordinated response to maltreatment in sport

There is an urgent need for greater uniformity and alignment across safe sport policies and complaint mechanisms. While governments endorsed the 2019 Red Deer Declaration, progress across the country has been uneven. Maltreatment occurs at all levels—not only in high-performance environments but also in community and youth sport where most participants are children. Complaint mechanisms remain fragmented, with significant differences in standards, procedures, and access across federal, provincial, and territorial systems. Several jurisdictions still lack a formal centralized complaint mechanism, and many governments and sport organizations depend on Independent Third-Party Mechanisms that are costly, inconsistent, and affected by perceived or real conflicts of interest.

In our Preliminary Report, we examined four possible frameworks for creating a coherent, pan-Canadian approach to addressing maltreatment in sport. One option envisioned a national authority jointly empowered through federal, provincial, and territorial legislation. Another proposed assigning responsibility to a single independent not-for-profit organization that would administer a universal safe sport policy across the country. A third option relied on federal contributions to provinces and territories to encourage them to establish complaint mechanisms that meet shared national standards. A final option considered the creation of federal legislation and a federal tribunal to address maltreatment in national and international-level sport only.

A comprehensive response to maltreatment in sport requires implementing consistent policies and complaint mechanisms that are applicable and accessible to everyone at all levels of sport.

Improving the Universal Code of Conduct

The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport provides a shared set of standards for preventing and addressing maltreatment in sport, but it now needs modernization to remain current and aligned with best practices. In our view, the Code should be reviewed regularly, and — to ensure independence, fairness, and accountability — the responsibility for updating it must be separate from the responsibility for enforcing it.

We call upon the Government of Canada to maintain the Universal Code of Conduct as a mandatory condition for federal funding and to ensure it remains current through regular updates. For the time being, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport may continue to act as the Code’s custodian, but this responsibility should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity (outlined in Chapter 12) as soon as that body is established. Safeguards must also be put in place to clearly separate the Centre’s policy-development functions from its adjudicative responsibilities, preserving independence and preventing real or perceived conflicts of interest.

We recommend that the Code undergo a comprehensive review every two years to ensure it continues to reflect evidence-based best practices and the needs of Canadians. UNESCO’s forthcoming Global Policy Standards for Inclusive, Equitable and Safe Sport and Physical Education, which will be presented for endorsement by UNESCO Member States (including Canada) at the 8th International Conference of Ministers and Senior Officials Responsible for Physical Education and Sport in 2027, should be considered when updating the Universal Code of Conduct.

Harmonizing safe sport standards across the sport system

The Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport sets national-level standards for preventing and addressing maltreatment. However, its reach is limited because it applies to only national and international sport and only where organizations choose to adopt it. Most national-level sport organizations also maintain their own safe sport policy or code of conduct. These policies or codes are applicable to all individuals affiliated with their organization, including those who do not compete or are not otherwise involved in national or international-level sport.

Provinces and territories rely on a mix of statutory frameworks, mandatory policies, or organization-developed codes, resulting in varying requirements and often conflicting expectations across jurisdictions and levels of sport. This patchwork places a heavy burden on organizations that sometimes lack the expertise to draft effective policies and creates significant misalignment across the country.

The Commission therefore calls upon the Government of Canada to mandate, as a condition of federal funding, that sport organizations adopt a safe sport policy or code of conduct that include safe sport standards consistent with those contained in the Universal Code of Conduct.

Aligning and expanding enforcement of safe sport standards

The current system for addressing maltreatment in sport is highly fragmented. It leaves participants uncertain about where to turn and often passed between multiple complaint mechanisms. Because the Canadian Safe Sport Program and its provincial and territorial counterparts have limited reach at the local level, many individuals have no access to an independent report process. In most jurisdictions, governments and sport organizations rely on Independent Third Parties despite concerns about conflicts of interest, high costs, uneven expertise, and a lack of regulatory oversight over these professionals and law firms.

We believe the most effective long-term solution is a single Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program supported by complementary federal, provincial, and territorial legislation and administered by an independent Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority. This model would create one coherent framework, streamline responses to maltreatment across the country, and enhance safety at every level of sport.

We recognize that such a system will take time and political commitment to build. Therefore, in the short term, we recommend that the federal government pursue the more immediately feasible approach of supporting provincial and territorial mechanisms through conditional financial contributions. These contributions should help each jurisdiction establish a centralized complaint mechanism that meets jointly defined criteria. The Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport will continue to administer the national program.

Phase I: Roadmap to implementing harmonized safe sport programs

Although the Canadian Safe Sport Program has been in operation for less than a year, the Commission considers it a meaningful improvement over the former Abuse-Free Sport Program. This view is based on both our independent review of the Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules and the largely positive feedback we received from participants in our engagement activities.

The program has introduced clearer rules and timelines, more consistent communication, and stronger trauma-informed and procedurally fair practices. It also offers a broader range of resolution options and provides greater oversight of investigations, ensuring that reports are handled efficiently and appropriately. Finally, by making the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport the sole administrator of all steps in the process, the program brings greater consistency and independence than the previous divided model.

However, we believe Sport Environment Assessments are vital to identifying and addressing unsafe sport cultures, and that they should be carried out by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.

We therefore call upon the Government of Canada to continue treating the Canadian Safe Sport Program as a mandatory condition of federal funding for national-level sport organizations. The program should remain under the independent administration of the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, with sustained federal funding to ensure it can receive and manage reports and carry out its policy functions effectively. We further call for increased federal funding so the Centre can resume conducting Sport Environment Assessments. Stable, long-term funding must also be provided to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada to ensure that reviews and appeals of the Centre’s decisions under the Canadian Safe Sport program remain accessible and free of charge for users.

To harmonize the response to maltreatment in sport across national, provincial, and local levels, the Commission calls, in the short term, for a three-step approach, inspired by the models used in health and childcare. As a first step, the Commission recommends developing a Multilateral Sport Framework, led by the federal government in partnership with provinces and territories. This framework would establish shared criteria, common objectives, and a coordinated vision for safe sport systems across the country. It would commit the federal government to providing funding that builds on existing provincial and territorial investments. It would also require provinces and territories to use that funding to develop or strengthen their own safe sport programs while aligning with the framework’s criteria.

Based on our research and review of existing safe sport policies and complaint mechanisms, and on feedback from participants, we strongly believe that provincial and territorial Safe Sport Programs should meet these minimum criteria to qualify for federal funding under the Multilateral Sport Framework:

  1. Universal safe sport standards. Provinces and territories shall adopt a universal code of conduct, legislation, or regulations establishing safe sport standards consistent with those contained in the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.
  2. Independent safe sport authority. Provinces and territories shall establish a provincial or territorial safe sport authority to administer reports of alleged violations of universal safe sport standards. The safe sport authority shall be an independent public or non-profit body, and it shall have jurisdiction over all reports of alleged violations of universal safe sport standards in the province or territory, regardless of government funding. It must be funded by the provincial or territorial government and free of charge for users.
  3. Information sharing. Provinces and territories shall ensure collaboration and information sharing between their safe sport authority and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. Safe sport authorities must agree to share all imposed sanctions that involve suspensions, permanent ineligibility, or other restrictions on sport participation, for inclusion in a Pan-Canadian Public Registry.
  4. Universal screening policy. Provinces and territories shall adopt a universal background screening policy applicable to sport organizations receiving government funding.
  5. Universal governance standards. Provinces and territories shall adopt a sport governance code or universal governance standards consistent with those contained in the Canadian Sport Governance Code applicable to sport organizations receiving government funding.

Eventually, governments should expand the Multilateral Sport Framework beyond safe sport programs to develop a shared vision for promoting broad sport and physical activity participation in the country.

Once the Multilateral Sport Framework is finalized, we call upon Parliament, as a second step, to amend the Physical Activity and Sport Act to support the Multilateral Sport Framework and bilateral funding agreements with provinces and territories.

As a third and final step, we call upon the Government of Canada to enter into bilateral funding agreements with each province and territory to put the Multilateral Sport Framework and the amended Act into operation. Each bilateral funding agreement would set out the conditions under which federal funding is provided. It would also require a plan explaining how the province or territory will use that funding to meet the shared framework’s criteria in a way that reflects its local realities. It would also require the province or territory to report annually on its progress and on the impact of federal investments.

We also call upon the Government of Canada, once provinces and territories have implemented a safe sport program compliant with the agreed-upon criteria under the Multilateral Sport Framework, to require that National Sport Organizations amend their membership rules to ensure that their members, the Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, adopt and comply with the universal safe sport standards established by their respective provincial or territorial government. This would become a condition of federal funding.

Phase II: Roadmap to implementing a single Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program

As we mentioned earlier, we believe that the most effective long-term solution to the issues we outlined is a single pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program administered by an independent Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority. The Commission acknowledges that this important undertaking will require significant collaboration between governments and a commitment to transformational leadership. However, the work is worthwhile.

The model would streamline how governments respond to maltreatment in sport by creating a single, coherent framework that applies to everyone from community participants to high-performance athletes. It would also simplify access to the system, replacing multiple overlapping policies and mechanisms with a clear point of entry in every jurisdiction. A legislated national authority would have the powers needed to investigate and sanction misconduct, while a council of ministers would ensure shared federal-provincial-territorial oversight and respect for each government’s jurisdiction.

We encourage governments to build on the existing Canadian Safe Sport Program and the safe sport programs that will be developed under the Multilateral Sport Framework to create a single pan-Canadian program. The Commission therefore calls upon the Government of Canada, in the long term, to actively collaborate with provinces and territories to develop a single Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program. This would require all governments to:

We also call for the creation of a council of ministers to oversee the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority and for the Government of Canada to fund, jointly with participating provincial and territorial governments, this Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority’s operations.

Findings and Calls to Action: enhancing complaint mechanisms and their resolution process

Our independent review and engagement process revealed that safe sport complaint mechanisms across Canada function inconsistently, with major differences in how reports are received, assessed, investigated, and resolved. Many processes are overly complex, slow, and opaque. They offer little support to those involved and lack trauma-informed approaches, due-process protections, and effective oversight or enforcement. We also echo participants’ concerns about confidentiality issues, particularly within Independent Third-Party Mechanisms. Overall, the landscape is fragmented and unreliable, leaving many complainants without a clear, fair, or consistent pathway to resolution.

Complaint-resolution processes and procedures: key features

Our Preliminary Report recommended that all resolution processes and procedures for handling safe sport reports in Canada be clear, straightforward, and easily accessible to all. We also recommended that they be timely, efficient, trauma informed and adapted to individuals who have experienced harm. They must embed procedural fairness for all parties involved and include monitoring and accountability measures to ensure that sport organizations properly enforce sanctions.

While reinforcing our preliminary recommendations, our independent review and engagement process following the release of our Preliminary Report led us to conclude that processes and procedures must also incorporate a triage or screening step, a broad range of resolution options, restorative principles, and an Indigenous approach.

We therefore call on the Government of Canada to encourage provinces, territories, and sport organizations to ensure that the report processes and procedures of safe sport authorities and Independent Third-party Mechanisms incorporate the following features:

Safe sport authorities and Independent Third-Party Mechanisms: key features

In our Preliminary Report, we recommended that all complaint mechanisms handling safe sport reports across Canada be transparent and provide consistent communication with all parties involved. They should also provide appropriate assistance to help individuals navigate the process and provide case managers who can act as intermediaries between the parties and the investigator or decision maker. These case managers can answer procedural questions or concerns and provide access to legal aid resources for all parties involved.

Given participants’ broad support for our preliminary recommendations regarding complaint mechanisms’ key features, we maintain them and call upon the Government of Canada to encourage provincial and territorial governments and sport organizations to ensure that safe sport authorities and Independent Third-Party Mechanisms develop safe sport programs that incorporate trauma-informed practices, transparency, support, expertise in the area relevant to the complaint, and legal aid resources.

Chapter 11 – Prevention strategies to build and sustain safe sport environments

Preventing maltreatment in sport is just as important as responding to it after harm occurs. While a prevention-focused approach reduces risks and helps create safer environments, reactive systems act only once harm has already been done. Because sport is an important part of life for many Canadians, strong prevention efforts have wide societal significance, especially for children and other vulnerable participants.

We focus on safe sport education and training, background screening processes, data collection, registries of sanctioned individuals, and safeguarding officers. These preventative measures were most frequently highlighted by participants throughout our work, and the Commission found them to be foundational.

Safe sport education and training

Education and training are essential to preventing maltreatment in sport and promoting safe and inclusive sport environments for all. Numerous education and training initiatives specific to safe sport are currently in place across the Canadian sport system.

For example, the National Coaching Certification Program provides standardized coach education, including the Make Ethical Decisions module. The Canadian Safe Sport Program requires participants to complete the Safe Sport 2025 e-learning module on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport. Under the former Abuse Free Sport Program, accredited training programs such as the Coaching Association of Canada’s Safe Sport Training and the Respect in Sport Training offered by the Respect Group Inc. were also mandatory.

Led by the Canadian Olympic Committee with support from Sport Canada and partners across the sport system, Project Lighthouse worked to promote and align safe sport education nationally. It expanded access to resources like the Quality Coaching Campaign and supported the development of new learning modules, including Safe Sport 2025.

The True Sport Movement, administered by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport until February 2025, promoted a values-based approach to sport grounded in fairness, excellence, inclusion, and fun through seven widely adopted principles. It offered tools such as a multimedia toolkit, podcasts, e-learning resources, programming support, social media materials, and educational content for children. The program ended in 2025 when the Centre withdrew due to a conflict of interest arising from its new role as the national safe sport authority.

Participants emphasized that safe sport training needs clearer, more practical, and updated content. They noted gaps in areas such as racism, sexism, hazing, digital harms, and grooming. They also viewed many online modules as superficial and stressed the need for accessible, interactive, or in-person learning. The lack of national coordination has led to duplicated and burdensome training requirements across sport organizations.

While participants highlighted True Sport as a strong values-based model, its uneven uptake and the loss of its administrator (the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport) raised concerns about sustaining its impact.

Findings and Calls to Action: harmonizing and coordinating safe sport education across the system

In our Preliminary Report, we recommended that the Government of Canada take a leadership role in harmonizing and coordinating safe sport education. This means launching a national public awareness campaign and developing and delivering a National Safe Sport Education Program in collaboration with stakeholders, provinces and territories, and Indigenous groups. The proposed program would include tailored chapters for all sport participants. It would be delivered and updated by a designated Multisport Service Organization and later the Centralized Sport Entity (outlined in Chapter 12). It would also be mandatory for federally funded sport organizations, with encouragement for provinces and territories to adopt the same requirement. The Commission also recommended that National Sport Organizations receiving federal funding update their membership rules to ensure the national safe sport program’s delivery within Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations and that the federal government provide the necessary resources for implementation. Finally, we called for the continued delivery of the True Sport Program by transferring it to an independent Multisport Service Organization and, eventually, the Centralized Sport Entity.

Launching a public awareness campaign

Despite education efforts within the sport system, a broader national public awareness campaign is needed to counter the long-standing culture of silence, harmful norms, and limited understanding of safe sport across Canada. Everyone involved in sport plays a role in creating and maintaining safe, respectful, and inclusive sport environments. Limiting education to only certain groups undermines the collective responsibility required to prevent maltreatment.

Given participants’ broad support, including provincial and territorial governments, we maintain our preliminary recommendation. We call upon the Government of Canada to launch a national public awareness campaign to inform the Canadian public about safe sport practices and the various forms of maltreatment and other prohibited behaviours in sport. We also call upon the Government of Canada to collaborate with provinces and territories to ensure consistent delivery of the national public awareness campaign while also considering each province and territory’s unique circumstances.

Developing a Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Education Program

Across the Canadian sport system, various organizations from the grassroots to high-performance levels deliver a wide range of safe sport education and training initiatives. That said, through our work, we identified several areas for improvement.

To make meaningful changes in the system, safe sport education and training must be delivered to all participants, go beyond identifying maltreatment, vary in formats, and be delivered in a coordinated manner. The current fragmented system leads to overlapping, duplicated courses and inconsistent messaging, underscoring the need for centralized, harmonized delivery.

We therefore maintain our preliminary recommendations regarding the creation of a single unified Safe Sport Education Program. We call on the Government of Canada to lead the development and rollout of a Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Education Program. It must work in partnership with provinces and territories and draw on subject-matter expertise to create a single, comprehensive, and interactive program for all sport participants. A National Multisport Service Organization, overseen by Sport Canada, would be responsible for implementing, updating, and delivering the program until these responsibilities transition to the Centralized Sport Entity.

We call on the Government of Canada to transfer to the same National Multisport Service Organization, and eventually to the Centralized Sport Entity, the mandate currently held by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to develop and maintain educational resources on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

To ensure broad uptake, we call on the Government of Canada to require all federally funded sport organizations to deliver the education program to everyone within their organization. The Government of Canada must also encourage provinces and territories to apply similar conditions for their own funded sport organizations, in addition to making the program available to any organization wishing to use it. We also recommend that the government provide the funding and resources necessary to support the program’s development and delivery across all levels of the sport system.

Reinstating the True Sport Program

Safe sport education must extend beyond identifying maltreatment. It needs to actively define what safe, positive sport environments look like and highlight core values such as fairness, respect, inclusion, and responsibility. In this regard, the True Sport Program has been an important vehicle for promoting values-based sport. It was discontinued by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport but, if it was reinstated, the True Sport program could continue to play a significant role.

We therefore maintain our preliminary recommendation and call upon the Government of Canada to contract a National Multisport Service Organization to advance the mission and expand the reach of the True Sport Program across the Canadian sport system. Custody of the True Sport Program should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.

Offering bystander training

Through our engagement process, participants repeatedly emphasized the need for bystander training to ensure that everyone involved in sport can recognize, prevent, and appropriately respond to maltreatment. Despite existing legal duties to report child abuse and obligations to report prohibited behaviour in sport under the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport, individuals often remain silent — even when they are aware of harm.

Given these gaps, the Commission concludes that both the national public awareness campaign and the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Education Program must include training on identifying harmful behaviours and understanding reporting obligations. This would help ensure that all participants are equipped to act when they witness maltreatment in sport.

We therefore call upon the Government of Canada to include bystander training, including education on the duties to report child abuse and maltreatment in sport. This should be part of the public awareness campaign and the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Education Program to be developed under the Government of Canada’s leadership.

Background screenings

Background screenings are a core component of creating safe sport environments. Many sport organizations across the country have developed policies and processes to screen applicant coaches, staff, and volunteers to ensure they meet important integrity requirements to participate or otherwise be involved in sport. The screening tools most commonly used include vulnerable sector checks, criminal record checks, disclosure forms, reference checks, interviews, and, most recently, social media screening.

However, the implementation of background screening remains inconsistent across jurisdictions and among sport organizations, largely because the requirements for it vary. Sport Canada requires National Sport Organizations to obtain background checks from coaches as a condition of receiving federal funding for their salaries. These include the Enhanced Police Information Center (E-PIC) check, Vulnerable Sector Search (VSS), Vulnerable Sector Verification (VSV), Vulnerable Sector Check (VSC), or equivalent background checks.

Some provinces and territories also impose screening requirements:

Participants agreed that background checks are essential to preventing abuse in sport and should be mandatory for all individuals in positions of trust, not just coaches. They raised concerns about inconsistent and insufficient screening practices across the country, especially at the grassroots level, where procedures may be less rigorous and can be burdensome for volunteer-run organizations.

Many cited troubling cases, such as banned individuals continuing to coach or individuals being hired despite prior offences, that highlight gaps in policy enforcement. Participants also noted that screenings are often not repeated over time and that vulnerable sector checks are becoming less common, even though they are more comprehensive than standard criminal record checks.

In our Preliminary Report, we proposed two approaches to standardizing background screenings. One option was to mandate vulnerable sector checks for coaches, officials, referees, volunteers, and employees in contact with athletes for federally funded sport organizations. The second option was to develop a standardized background screening policy in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous groups, and Multisport Service Organizations, which sport organizations would be required to adopt. Across both options, the Commission recommended expanding the requirement to conduct vulnerable sector checks or to adopt a background screening policy to all levels of sport.

Findings and Calls to Action: establishing a universal screening standard

The consistent implementation of harmonized background screening procedures for anyone who has authority, access, or influence over athletes (especially minors) is a fundamental component of a sound maltreatment prevention strategy. The Government of Canada has a vital leadership role to play in establishing and supporting this national standard.

We recognize that many participants raised concerns that vulnerable sector checks are outdated, costly, administratively burdensome, and sometimes not comprehensive. We also recognize that a standardized background screening policy allows for greater flexibility in screening tools. We therefore recommend that the Government of Canada develop a standardized background screening policy.

The background screening policy should be risk based and should include, at a minimum, the following screening tools:

It is also essential that it incorporates a requirement for sport organizations to verify individuals against the Pan-Canadian Registry of Sanctioned Individuals (outlined in Chapter 11).

In the Preliminary Report, we recommended that all governments jointly develop a standardized background screening policy, which would then be mandated as a condition of federal or provincial and territorial funding. After careful consideration, we think that a more effective approach would be for each government—federal, provincial, and territorial—to develop its own universal background screening policy. This would allow provinces and territories to tailor their policies to local needs and the specific characteristics of their communities and populations. It would also let them decide whether to tie the policy to provincial or territorial funding or, as Quebec did with Bill 45, to mandate background screening through legislation to extend their reach beyond funded sport organizations. This second choice is preferable.

We therefore call upon the Government of Canada to develop a national background screening policy for adoption and implementation by federally funded sport organizations. Additionally, we strongly encourage governments to develop a provincial or territorial background-screening policy as a criterion for provincial or territorial Safe Sport Programs to qualify for federal funding under the Multilateral Sport Framework (outlined in Chapter 10).

Data collection

Experts urge decision makers to adopt strategies to prevent and address maltreatment in sport that are grounded in theory and empirical data. They emphasized that evidence must be accessible to all participants, including coaches, parents, officials, volunteers, and support staff, to ensure safe sport practices are effectively applied.

Findings and Calls to Action: grounding prevention and response efforts in evidence

In the Preliminary Report, we recommended creating a national data tool to regularly collect, measure and analyze the key indicators that are needed to assess the health and safety of sport environments across Canada.

While we acknowledge that information sharing must take into account applicable privacy and access-to-information legislation, governments should collaborate to share non-personal data to support evidence-based decision making and strengthen safe sport outcomes across Canada. An easy first step would be for governments to consolidate data collected through the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, along with data from existing provincial and territorial centralized complaint mechanisms.

We therefore call on the Government of Canada to establish a comprehensive national tool to regularly collect and analyze data on key indicators that measure and assess the health and safety of sport environments in Canada. Safe sport reports and their outcomes should be included in the data collected.

We also call for collaboration with provincial and territorial governments to consolidate data collected by provinces, territories, or their centralized complaint mechanisms or safe sport authorities.

Public registries of sanctioned individuals

The former Abuse-Free Sport Registry and its successor, the Canadian Safe Sport Program Public Registry, were created to meet the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport requirement for a public, searchable list of individuals whose eligibility to participate in sport has been restricted.

Maintained by the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner until August 2025, the former Abuse-Free Sport Registry disclosed sanctions and provisional measures that restricted eligibility to participate in sport. Since April 2025, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport maintains the Canadian Safe Sport Program Public Registry, which similarly publishes sanctions and provisional measures restricting an individual’s eligibility to participate in sport. It may also recognize and publish sanctions issued by other regulatory bodies or sport organizations. The Centre maintains an internal database containing resolutions and sanctions not posted publicly, accessible to organizations with consent of the concerned individual.

Beyond the national system, some National Sport Organizations and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations maintain their own public sanction registries, though these vary widely in scope, detail, and consistency and no legislation requires them to exist. Examples include registries maintained by Athletics Canada, Gymnastics Canada, Skate Canada, Swimming Canada, and certain Provincial Sport Organizations such as Ontario Volleyball and Gymnastics Ontario. To our knowledge, Sask Sport is the only sport federation maintaining a centralized registry at the provincial level.

Participants explained that individuals banned from sport can often move between organizations or jurisdictions without detection because sanction information is inconsistently recorded and communicated. They viewed the current patchwork of registries as inadequate. They noted that many sanctions are never published, some registries are hard to find on sport organization’s websites, and most sport organizations lack any registry at all. As a result, participants strongly supported creating a single national registry to help all sport organizations verify individuals’ histories and prevent sanctioned participants from continuing their involvement elsewhere.

In our Preliminary Report, we outlined four possible approaches for creating a pan-Canadian registry of sanctioned individuals in sport. One option involved both orders of government empowering a single safe sport authority to administer federal, provincial and territorial safe sport legislation and maintain a national registry. A second was for governments to delegate the administration of a universal safe sport policy to an independent not-for-profit corporation that would also be contractually required to operate the registry. A third option proposed tying federal contributions to provinces and territories’ willingness to share sanction information, enabling the creation of a single registry. A fourth option would have the federal government enter agreements with provinces and territories that already have centralized complaint mechanisms to report sanctions into a pan-Canadian registry.

Findings and Calls to Action: creating a Pan-Canadian Registry of Sanctioned Individuals

Sanction registries remain the exception rather than the rule. This makes it difficult to know whether an individual has been banned or restricted. It also allows some to move between organizations or jurisdictions despite active sanctions against them. To address this, participants and governments supported creating a pan-Canadian registry.

However, a national registry of sanctioned individuals is only as reliable as the national, provincial and territorial centralized complaint mechanisms that feed into it. In other words, the broader the reach of the centralized complaint mechanisms, the wider the range of sanctions that the registry can capture. This objective underpins our Calls to Action articulated in Chapter 10. How to establish a Pan-Canadian Registry of Sanctioned Individuals is an issue that flows naturally from these Calls to Action, given that the registry would centralize information provided by these various safe sport authorities.

In the short term, we call on the Government of Canada to enter into an agreement with provincial and territorial governments. It would specify collaboration and information sharing between the National Safe Sport Authority (that is, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport) and provincial and territorial safe sport authorities to be established according to the Multilateral Sport Framework. This collaboration should encompass sharing imposed sanctions for inclusion in a Pan-Canadian Public Registry of Sanctioned Individuals.

As we suggest in Chapter 10, information sharing between the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and the various provincial and territorial safe sport authorities could be agreed to as a criterion under the Multilateral Sport Framework. This could be further formalized through bilateral funding agreements between the federal government and each province and territory. Until the Multilateral Sport Framework is executed, the Government of Canada could immediately conclude agreements with the provinces and territories that already have centralized complaints mechanisms, or that are in the process of implementing one, to share information with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport to create a Pan-Canadian Registry.

As for the Pan-Canadian Registry’s content, the Commission believes it should only capture sanctions that involve a suspension, a permanent ineligibility, or other measures that restrict an individual’s eligibility to participate in sport. While we agree, in principle, that past sanctions would ideally remain publicly available on a permanent basis, we acknowledge that privacy laws impose restrictions on the disclosure of personal information. The scope of the personal information published could expand if, as recommended in Chapter 10, provinces and territories enacted legislation delegating the power to investigate and adjudicate reports of maltreatment to a single Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority, and empowered it to maintain a sanction registry.

Consequently, in the long term, we call on the Government of Canada to work closely with provincial and territorial governments, when developing a single unified Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Program, to mandate the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Authority to oversee and maintain the Pan-Canadian Registry.

Safeguarding officers

As we explain in Chapter 3, power imbalances, a culture of silence, and a winning-at-all-costs mentality create conditions where maltreatment is ignored or normalized. This leads athletes and bystanders to remain silent even when they are aware of harmful behaviours.

Athletes described situations where their concerns raised about abusive coaching were dismissed, minimized, or suppressed by sport leaders who prioritized performance results and avoided negative publicity. Even when formal complaint processes existed, many athletes first disclosed concerns to team personnel who lacked the independence or qualifications to handle them. This resulted in mishandled complaints or further silencing.

To address these systemic issues, participants emphasized the need for every sport organization to appoint an independent, dedicated individual responsible for athletes’ safety and well-being. Ideally this person would be a licensed health professional who operates outside performance structures. They would observe training and competition environments directly to identify potential maltreatment without relying on athletes to report it themselves.

Findings and Calls to Action: designating safeguarding officers in all sport organizations

Athletes need protection from power imbalances and organizational cultures that prioritize performance outcomes and reputational risk over their welfare. These conditions can make it difficult for athletes to speak up about maltreatment or unsafe practices. The Commission considers it essential that sport organizations appoint individuals whose sole responsibility is to safeguard athletes’ safety and well-being. The presence of such safeguarding officers strengthens public confidence, helps dismantle cultures of silence, and removes significant barriers to reporting maltreatment. It also encourages the use of complaint mechanisms and support services.

To be effective, safeguarding officers must operate independently of both the team environment and the sport organization’s performance structures. They need appropriate safeguards in place to ensure their autonomy and protect them from undue influence. Safeguarding officers must also be licensed health professionals with an understanding of athletes’ psychological and physical health and well-being.

We therefore call upon the Government of Canada to mandate that all sport organizations receiving federal funding designate a safeguarding officer. The officer’s responsibilities shall be to safeguard athletes’ safety and well-being within the sport organization’s activities. Safeguarding officers shall be independent from the team environment and the sport organization’s performance structures. We also call upon the Government of Canada to encourage provincial and territorial governments to implement the same requirement for Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations receiving funding.

Chapter 12 – The need for new leadership of Canadian sport

The Canadian sport system is complex and fragmented. Complicated jurisdictional issues combined with inconsistent accountability mechanisms, governance requirements, oversight, and a lack of information-sharing mechanisms among sport and physical activity organizations at all levels have led to confusion and gaps. At the same time, the combination of stagnant federal funding, a focus on high performance, and the proliferation of sport organizations has contributed to a system that lacks cohesion and shared purpose.

Despite the many committed individuals and organizations working within the sport system, participants consistently emphasized that no identifiable point of national leadership exists.

They also consistently noted that the sport portfolio is not prioritized and does not get the attention it deserves. It has typically remained an entry-level ministerial position. Sport Canada is a branch within the Department of Canadian Heritage that is responsible for sport—it does not have its own ministry. In some instances, a secretary of state or minister of state holds this portfolio, which diminishes its importance at the federal cabinet table because these positions do not necessarily have full authority or presence within the cabinet. Because sport is housed within the Department of Canadian Heritage—the department responsible for promoting Canadian identity and values and celebrating Canada’s history and heritage it is seen as a vehicle to foster and promote national pride.

Frequent turnover among federal ministers and short-term political objectives further destabilize the system, leaving it without a sustained vision or clear sense of direction. Over the past 15 years, there have been 10 changes in ministers and portfolios, and sport has not always had a dedicated minister. This has led to delays and confusion when priorities are re-examined or re-established.

Many participants indicated that sport and physical activity policies and initiatives are often slow to be implemented and, in some cases, they are not implemented at all. Although federal, provincial and territorial governments endorse policies and initiatives, implementation is inconsistent across jurisdictions. Participants frequently cited the delayed or incomplete implementation of the 2019 Red Deer Declaration — For the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport, as a clear example of these challenges. Shortcomings were also evident in the implementation of previous editions of the Canadian Sport Policy, aimed to increase participation in sport, which it did not achieve.

The efficiency of existing intergovernmental collaboration mechanisms was also questioned. Participants recognized that several forums exist for intergovernmental collaboration, including the Ministers Conferences and the Sport, Physical Activity and Recreation Council. These participants, however, told the Commission that these mechanisms face important challenges, describing the meetings among ministers as infrequent, inefficient, or insufficiently action oriented.

From coast to coast to coast, the message is consistent: the sport system requires structural transformation and genuine leadership. Participants expressed an urgent need for renewed national leadership capable of setting a unified direction, restoring trust, and driving meaningful reform.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need for strategic change in government leadership

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

The interdependence of sport and physical activity, reflected in the Physical Activity and Sport Act, makes unified oversight essential to ensure coordinated policy, improved national direction, and a consistent approach from the grassroots to the high-performance level. Consolidating these areas under a single department ensures that the minister benefits from integrated policy and program support.

The federal minister needs to show stronger and more decisive leadership to drive a new and integrated vision for sport and physical activity in Canada. Government and ministerial leadership are essential for guiding departmental activities, leading enhanced collaboration with provinces and territories, and shaping new structures to ensure a more integrated sport and physical activity system. Stronger leadership will ultimately lead to a stronger and safer sport system.

When considering these required changes, it is important to distinguish the Commission’s understanding of “sport” and “physical activity.” The Commission views sport as an organized rule-based activity with a focus on skills development, including community, competitive, and high-performance-level activities that can be performed either alone or in a team. Physical activity, on the other hand, refers to less organized or informal activities and movement, which are fundamental elements of health and well-being.

The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada to ensure that a single federal minister is responsible for sport and physical activity. Structural changes must then follow to ensure that the minister responsible for sport and physical activity is supported by a single department. The necessary legislative changes must be made to promote this long-lasting structural change.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need for enhanced intergovernmental collaboration grounded in accountability

Enhanced collaboration between federal, provincial, and territorial governments is needed to promote consistent and harmonized approaches to promoting safe, inclusive, accessible, and well-governed sport and physical activity opportunities for all Canadians at all levels. Although collaboration mechanisms exist and have produced positive results in the past, the Commission finds that their effectiveness has not been consistent, and they have not delivered the level of coordination required to address the safe sport crisis or strengthen the sport system.

Only by working together can all governments improve safe sport in Canada, improve the sport system, and establish Canada as a world leader in sport and physical activity. The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada to collaborate with provincial and territorial governments to enhance the rigour of their collaboration to improve safe sport and advance sport and physical activity for all Canadians.

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

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

The Commission is of the view that the federal government should review and revitalize its sport-related policies in association with the implementation of the Canadian Sport Policy 2025–2035 to better serve the sport community. Many key policies, like the 2006 Policy on Sport for Persons with a Disability and the 2008 Federal Policy for Hosting International Sport Events, are more than a decade old and no longer reflect contemporary needs or expectations.

We therefore call on the Government of Canada to review its sport-related policies and commit to regularly reviewing sport and physical activity policies and strategies. These policies should reflect current realities, emerging challenges, and best practices. This reviewing role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established (as we describe below).

As a part of the broader efforts to renew and modernize federal sport policies, the Commission maintains its preliminary recommendation that the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the Disability sport community, should develop a separate national strategy for Disability sport. The objective of this strategy would be to promote access to sport for persons with disabilities, which includes Para and Paralympic sport. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.

We also call on the Government of Canada to develop and implement a new strategy to promote broad sport participation and physical activity. This strategy should be consistent with a new approach that balances support for high-performance and broad sport participation. Canada has no coordinated, long-term federal approach focused on increasing participation. It is essential to recognize the importance of addressing participation across the entire continuum of sport, from the grassroots to high performance.

The Government of Canada must ensure that there is a national tool to systematically and regularly collect information and data related to sport and physical activity to support evidence-based policy development. Although some organizations endeavour to provide this information, there is a lack of regular, systematic collection of data relating to sport and physical activity. This includes data on participation, funding, infrastructure, and participant well-being. There is also insufficient coordination among these organizations, which leads to duplicated efforts. The Commission calls on the Government of Canada to establish a national data tool capable of regularly gathering and analyzing key indicators across the country.

We also recognize the lack of research, information, and data specific to Indigenous people and sport in Canada and call on the Government of Canada to provide continued funding to support research in this area.

Developing comprehensive sport and physical activity policies is an important first step toward fostering safe, inclusive, equitable, and accessible sport environments, as well as promoting physical activity. But the creation of such policies alone is insufficient to achieve meaningful outcomes. Without consistent implementation, progress is limited and people’s trust erodes. To address this shortcoming, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada to develop and implement action plans and institute programs to support all its sport and physical activity policies and strategies. Each action plan should clearly define the policy’s objectives, set measurable targets, and outline specific actions to be taken by the Government of Canada. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.

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

As we articulated in our Preliminary Report, Canada’s approach to sport must encompass both the pursuit of excellence in high-performance sport and broad sport participation. After considering participant feedback on this recommendation, our position remains the same.

Decisions made with respect to sport and physical activity must be evidence-based and timely, not shaped by undue political influence and pressure. More importantly, there must be a single point of leadership for sport and physical activity in Canada to provide clearer and greater accountability.

Consequently, the Commission maintains that a Centralized Sport Entity will allow for a harmonized, strategic, and coordinated approach to sport across the country. Indeed, uniting Canada’s sport and physical activity organizations will lead to better efficiencies, reduce redundancies, and clarify responsibilities. Through this entity, synergies and efficiencies between sport and physical activity programs will be created. In addition, the centralization of functions as opposed to the fragmentation of functions across different organizations will enhance public confidence by providing a clear and distinct entity they can refer to.

Centralized Sport Entity: mandate, key functions, and responsibilities

To achieve such an approach to centralize sport and physical activity in Canada, the Commission is of the view that the Centralized Sport Entity’s mandate should be to encourage, promote, and develop sport and physical activity in Canada consistent with the Physical Activity and Sport Act. To carry out this mandate, the Centralized Sport Entity should take on the following key functions:

  1. Strategic direction and leadership for sport and physical activity: Provide national leadership to align federal, provincial, and territorial priorities; identify systemwide needs; and promote coherent strategies, policies, and investments across Canada. This includes fostering collaboration across governments and sectors, and ensuring the entity is included in ministerial discussions that shape the sport and physical activity landscape.
  2. Funding for sport and physical activity: Centralize all federal sport and physical activity funding, including receiving, allocating, and distributing funds and overseeing funding; develop a long-term funding strategy, set funding criteria and conditions, make funding decisions, and use funding levers to reinforce national priorities—for example, safe sport and governance requirements—through funding conditions. Some of these functions currently reside with Sport Canada and Own the Podium as they relate to sport, and with the Public Health Agency of Canada as they relate to physical activity.
  3. Policy for sport and physical activity: Develop, review, maintain, update, and implement national sport and physical activity policies. This includes developing new national strategies that the Commission recommended, including a national strategy to promote participation in sport and physical activity, encompassing high-performance sport and broad participation as well as a national Disability sport strategy to promote access to sport for persons with disabilities, including Para and Paralympic sport, and a national strategy on equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility in sport and physical activity.
    The Centralized Sport Entity would also be responsible for implementing action plans with measurable goals and reporting publicly on policy and program outcomes. Some of these functions currently reside with Sport Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada as it relates to policies that fall within the scope of physical activity described in the Physical Activity and Sport Act.
  4. Custodian of the Canadian Sport Governance Code and the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in sport: Assume custody of both codes and maintain, review, and update them to ensure they reflect current best practices and remain relevant. Responsibility for the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport currently resides with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.
  5. Education and Training: Lead the development and delivery of pan-Canadian education and training efforts related to sport and physical activity. This would include responsibility for operationalizing, updating, and delivering the Pan-Canadian Safe Sport Education Program; advancing the mission and expanding the reach of the True Sport Program across the Canadian sport system; and developing and implementing the national coaching certification program. We recognize that these functions currently reside with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport and the Coaching Association of Canada.
  6. Compliance and oversight: Develop and implement a monitoring, compliance, and auditing regime for all organizations receiving federal sport and physical activity funding. This includes verifying compliance with governance and safe sport requirements, including regular and proactive audits.
  7. Sport and physical activity research and knowledge: To inform the policies and strategies developed by the Entity and ensure they are evidence-based, support and advance Canadian sport and physical activity through best practice research and knowledge-building efforts for the sport sector. This function currently resides with the Sport Information and Resource Centre and the Public Health Agency of Canada, among others.

For many of these functions, the Centralized Sport Entity will need to collaborate with Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Sport, Physical Activity, and Recreation, including participation at the Ministers Conference.

Consistent with our Calls to Action in Chapter 6 regarding Indigenous people and sport, the Centralized Sport Entity will also engage with Indigenous sport organizations, governments, and communities in its decision-making processes to ensure that Indigenous perspectives are reflected throughout its work.

The Commission’s chosen model: the Crown Corporation

In our Preliminary Report, we presented five options for consideration: a ministerial department, a ministerial departmental agency, a crown corporation, a not-for-profit created by federal legislation, and a not-for-profit third-party delivery organization. Without making a preliminary recommendation on the entity’s legal structure, the Commission noted that it a crown corporation or a not-for-profit created by federal legislation to be the preferred options.

In exploring these five options, we wanted to identify a model that provided the right balance between ensuring autonomy and independence of decision making on sport-specific issues while accounting for ministerial direction and accountability of the entity. After considering the feedback we received in response to our Preliminary Report, including deliberations at the National Summit organized by the Commission, we conclude that the crown corporation is the most optimal model for the Centralized Sport Entity.

A crown corporation operates autonomously from government. Therefore, it reduces the influence of political interference and pressures in the decision-making process. To provide even further balance between autonomy and independence from government in decision-making powers, the enabling legislation should clearly define the circumstances in which the minister responsible for the entity can intervene. Another advantage to the crown corporation model is the fact that it is created through federal legislation, which makes it less likely to experience funding changes. This, in turn, provides the entity with some stability and predictable funding. An added benefit of the crown corporation model is the possibility for revenue-generating avenues to be explored as the Centralized Sport Entity’s scope and mandate evolve.

A phased approach to creating the Centralized Sport Entity

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

Since base funding would come from this budget transfer, a transitional fund would need to be established to offset the initial costs related to the entity’s establishment, as is the case for any large transformational initiative. The Commission is of the view that this consolidation and reallocation of existing resources will maximize impact and reduce duplication and redundancy.

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

The first phase would focus on the growth, promotion, and increased participation in sport at all levels. The second phase should expand the functions assigned to the Centralized Sport Entity to include improving physical activity. This phased approach would enable the Centralized Sport Entity to achieve initial success before organically expanding the scope of its functions and responsibilities.

For these reasons, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada to create a Crown Corporation (the “Centralized Sport Entity”), established by legislation, which would confer a broad mandate to the entity. The new entity will encourage, promote, and develop sport and physical activity in Canada consistent with the objectives of the Physical Activity and Sport Act.

To ensure initial success before organically expanding its functions and responsibilities, the Commission also calls upon the Government of Canada to adopt a phased approach to operationalize the Centralized Sport Entity starting with the implementation of functions and responsibilities related to the sport objectives of the Physical Activity and Sport Act followed by those related to the physical activity objectives of the Act.

Through deliberate centralization, clearer leadership, stronger governance, and more robust intergovernmental collaboration, the Centralized Sport Entity will help strengthen trust, reduce redundancy, and deliver a more coherent, coordinated, and safe sport environment for all Canadians.

Chapter 13 – Alignment across sport system structures

The growing number of sport organizations at the national, provincial, territorial, and community levels has created a context in which too many organizations are vying for too few resources. Each of these sport organizations has its own board of directors, staff, and coaches. They also each have their own internal legal, human resources, communications, information technology (IT), and accounting departments or are required to purchase these services elsewhere. Each sport organization spends part of their budget on administrative services. This has led to redundancies and duplication in the Canadian sport system.

The lack of influence, control and oversight that National Sport Organizations have over their sport from the national level to the grassroots further undermines consistency and alignment across all aspects of sport delivery. Most National Sport Organizations have very little oversight or control over their provincial and territorial member organizations and are disconnected from the grassroots. This is typically not well understood by the public. Most people assume that a sport is affiliated with its National Sport Organization and guided by that organization’s policies, programs, and processes, which often, is not the case. This disconnect has resulted in inconsistent application of policies and procedures across all levels of a sport.

Issues of alignment and efficiencies also exist within Canada’s Disability and Para sport structures. There is inconsistency with respect to sport for people with disabilities, which is offered either in segregated, adapted, or integrated environments. For example, at the national level, four Para sport organizations are funded by the federal government. There are also other national level Para sport organizations that operate independently within the broader sport system, meaning they do not operate within the structure of the National Sport Organization responsible for the non-Para sport equivalent. Additionally, there are some National Sport Organizations that have integrated a Para sport extending their responsibilities to that Para sport.

A similar combination of organizations operates at the provincial, territorial, and community level of sport so a variety of organizations deliver sport for athletes with disabilities. Some offer opportunities in a specific sport across disabilities, while others offer opportunities across a variety of sports for a specific group of participants with disabilities. Some organizations offer opportunities for individuals with and without disabilities, while others focus on participants with disabilities. There are also organizations that offer adapted opportunities within a broader offering for everyone.

While recognizing these inconsistencies across all levels of the sport system, the Commission also acknowledges that the integration of Disability sport with non-Disability sport is not always optimal. This is due to the unique realities of athletes with disabilities, which include the need for disability-specific expertise and equipment.

A further challenge to alignment in the sport system is the emergence and growth of private entities. These entities operate in an ecosystem where National, Provincial, and Territorial Sport Organizations have limited or no ability to oversee or influence them. This frequently results in poor governance and the absence of any consistent oversight or accountability.

Findings and Calls to Action: strategic transformation for a more cohesive, aligned and united sport system

In its Preliminary Report the Commission proposed several mechanisms, including shared services, amalgamation, and improved policy consistency as potential pathways to reduce duplication and strengthen coherence. Considering the feedback we received from participants following the release of our Preliminary Report, we advance these mechanisms as essential for system-wide change.

To strengthen alignment among sport organizations and enhance overall efficiency in the sport system, the Commission urges the Government of Canada and the sport sector to take immediate steps to initiate sustainable change. For this change to occur, shared service models among sport organizations must be established, sport organizations must amalgamate, and policies must be applied consistently across all levels of sport. Once implemented, these changes will lead to a more cohesive, aligned, and united Canadian sport system. In turn accountability will be reinforced, duplication and redundancies will be reduced, and financial and operational efficiencies will be achieved.

Establishing shared services models among sport organizations

Sharing common services among sport organizations will result in a better integrated sport system. It will allow sport organizations to come together and pool their resources, have greater purchasing power, lower their respective administrative overheads, create efficiencies and synergies, and generate savings.

At the national level of sport, a group of National Sport Organizations could establish a horizontal shared service model. These National Sport Organizations could also consider a vertical shared services model with their respective Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations. This model could also extend to club-level organizations. A model combining both horizontal and vertical shared services would also be possible.

Considering the unique and specific needs of athletes with disabilities and Disability sport organizations, the Commission recognizes that any process to achieve a shared services model will require meaningful engagement and collaboration with Disability sport, Para sport, and Paralympic sport organizations. It also must include athletes with disabilities to obtain their insights and evaluate whether a shared services model is optimal. Different models are possible since services could be shared among organizations that serve persons with disabilities or with organizations that serve other types of sport participants.

The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada to encourage National Sport Organizations to establish horizontal shared service models. It further calls upon the Government of Canada to encourage National Sport Organizations to establish vertical shared service models with their Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, and where appropriate, with community clubs. With respect to a vertical shared service model, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada to collaborate with provincial and territorial governments to encourage their respective Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations to consider such models.

Amalgamating sport organizations

Recognizing the current financial challenges that the sport system faces and the limited funding available, the Commission considers that sport organizations have reached a critical point. Many organizations reported acute financial pressures and a lack of operational capacity. They acknowledged that without structural consolidation they will struggle to meet safe sport obligations, governance requirements, or core program delivery.

Amalgamating sport organizations will generate efficiencies and contribute to a more cohesive, united, and accountable sport system. Amalgamation, whether horizontal, vertical, or a combination of both, is necessary to ensure sport organizations’ long-term stability.

The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada to encourage the amalgamation of National Sport Organizations (horizontal amalgamation), and the amalgamation of National Sport Organizations with their respective Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations (vertical amalgamation). The Commission also calls on the Government of Canada to collaborate with provincial and territorial governments to encourage their respective Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations to consider such an amalgamation.

It will be crucial for sport organizations to engage and collaborate with Disability sport, Para sport, and Paralympic sport organizations and athletes with disabilities as processes to amalgamate are undertaken. Given the unique and specific needs of athletes with disabilities and Disability sport organizations, their input and insights are crucial in deciding whether amalgamation with non-Disability or with other Disability sport organizations would be optimal.

Positive incentives from the Government such as additional one-time funding or other benefits from the Government would encourage these efforts and reward cost-saving measures. However, the reality is that such steps are essential regardless of external motivation. In the current fiscal context, sport organizations must pursue these steps to transformation not only for financial gain but also to ensure their survival and long-term stability. The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada to create a strategic transformation fund to support National Sport Organizations as they undertake the establishment of shared services models and the amalgamation process.

Ensuring consistent policies across the sport system

The Commission understands that in many cases, there is a lack of collaboration between National Sport Organizations and their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations and private clubs. Even in cases where there is a high degree of collaboration and alignment, there can be a disconnect between a National Sport Organization’s vision and those of their provincial and territorial counterparts. Additionally, there is a common misconception among the public that any given sport is subject to its National Sport Organization’s oversight. As such, parents and athletes can be under the impression that a private club, league, or institute operates under the umbrella of a National Sport Organization and is subject to their policies and procedures. However, that is often not the case.

To provide greater accountability and uniformity across the sport system and ensure that all Canadians have access to the same sport experience, the Commission is of the view that policies and their application must be consistent within and across all levels of sport. National Sport Organizations are therefore called upon to take the lead in seeking consistent policies and their application throughout their respective sport. Similarly, the Commission is of the view that provincial and territorial governments could encourage their Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations to seek this same consistency at the grassroots level.

Private sport organizations, clubs, and leagues operating outside the scope of governmentally funded sport bodies have proliferated. The Commission therefore calls upon the sport system, including National Sport Organizations and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, to collaborate and develop processes to ensure that policies are consistently applied through all levels of sport and extend to private entities.

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

Many of the issues that led to the Commission’s creation reflect a fundamental failure of the governance structures in the sport system. Participants described a clear and persistent governance crisis across the Canadian sport system. They explained that weaknesses in governance structures have contributed directly to the safe sport crisis and affect organizations at every level, including national, provincial and territorial, and community sport organizations.

Many sport organizations manage significant public funding while depending heavily on volunteer boards whose members often lack governance expertise. This reliance on volunteers has contributed to recurring conflicts of interest, recycled leadership, inconsistent decision making, and inadequate handling of maltreatment complaints. Participants also stated that existing governance requirements are limited, inconsistently applied, and rarely monitored in a meaningful way. A further challenge to appropriate governance and oversight in the sport system is the growth of private clubs, leagues, and organizations. These organizations also lack guidance on sport governance standards.

Sport governance and existing frameworks

While some governance requirements currently exist in the Canadian sport system, they are limited and have been applied inconsistently. As not-for-profit corporations, sport organizations must comply with 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. Therefore, governments, as funders, can establish governance guidelines as stand-alone tools or as conditions of their funding agreements with sport organisations.

At the national level, the Canadian Sport Governance Code was released in April 2021. This Code aims to enhance governance practices within National Sport Organizations. In 2023, the federal government announced that compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code would become a condition of receiving federal funding for all federally funded National Sport Organizations. The required governance changes would have to be implemented by April 2025.

In late 2024, however, the federal government introduced the Sport Integrity Framework along with revised guidelines. Rather than requiring sport organizations to formally adopt the Canadian Sport Governance Code as a stand-alone instrument, the new framework required the adoption of five mandatory governance elements. The new framework also recognizes the Canadian Sport Governance Code as an established source of best practices in sport organization governance. As a result, federally funded National Sport Organizations are currently required to comply with the five mandatory governance elements prescribed by the Sport Integrity Framework.

At the provincial and territorial level, some provincial and territorial governments use policy to require sport organizations within their jurisdiction to comply with some governance requirements. Quebec is the only province that has developed a governance code specifically tailored for not-for-profit sport and leisure organizations. This Code is detailed and includes 14 governance requirement categories.

The Commission also takes note of governance frameworks developed by international groups and other countries. The International Olympic Committee, the Council of Europe, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Wales, Australia, and the Netherlands have established sport governance codes and/or frameworks. While each country 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. Canada has not yet achieved such consistency.

The Commission concludes that Canada urgently needs to reconsider its approach to sport governance across all levels of sport. The Commission believes that sport governance standards must be mandatory, regularly reviewed, and subject to oversight. The Commission also finds that a harmonized approach to sport governance standards across federal, provincial, territorial, and community levels of sport is essential to system-wide change.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need for mandatory sport governance standards

The Commission finds that the Government of Canada must clearly define governance standards that all federally funded sport organizations must meet. The adoption of and compliance with the Canadian Sport Governance Code should be required as a condition of federal funding. The Commission recognizes that many sport organizations already comply with the Code or parts of it even though compliance with it is not currently mandatory. However, making the Code mandatory would promote consistency and strengthen accountability. By making it mandatory, sport organizations could rely on this requirement to respond to any resistance from their boards of directors and effect needed changes in governance practices.

The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada to require all federally funded sport organizations to adopt and comply with the Canadian Sport Governance Code. Considering the Code is currently written for National Sport Organizations, that language will need to be revised to include National Multisport Service Organizations and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes.

The Commission also recommends that a reasonable transition period be provided to sport organizations to allow them to reach compliance without affecting their eligibility for funding. Finally, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada to provide financial support and governance guidance during this transition. The Government of Canada must also serve as the Code’s custodian until the Centralized Sport Entity is established (outlined in Chapter 12).

Findings and Calls to Action: the need to review and enhance sport governance standards

As governance practices evolve the Commission is of the view that governance standards must be regularly reviewed to ensure that they remain relevant and reflect good governance practices. Considering that the Canadian Sport Governance Code was drafted and released in 2021, the Code is up for review. Although the Code should be reviewed, this review should not postpone making it mandatory for all federally funded sport organizations.

The Commission identified five enhancements that should be made to the Code and considered in the review process. These enhancements involve 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.

The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada, in collaboration with governance experts, to conduct a review of the Canadian Sport Governance Code. As part of this review, the Government of Canada is called upon to amend the Code to expand its application to National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes. It should also integrate the five enhancements that the Commission identified as mandatory practices in the Code.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need for sport governance standards oversight

It is crucial to implement regular oversight measures to ensure sport organizations comply with governance requirements and implement good governance practices. The Commission finds that such oversight must be random, periodic, and go beyond self-reporting.

As such, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada in collaboration with governance experts to develop and implement an oversight mechanism capable of verifying whether sport organizations are truly complying with the governance standards they must follow. The Government of Canada must use this oversight mechanism to conduct regular audits of federally funded sport organizations to ensure their implementation of the Canadian Sport Governance Code. This role should be transferred to the Centralized Sport Entity once it is established.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need for a harmonized approach to governance standards at all levels of sport

We recognize that Canada’s sport system extends beyond National Sport Organizations to Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations and then to the community or local level. The Commission therefore believes that all three levels need to work together to reach a consistent and harmonized approach to sport governance.

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. We considered the feedback we received on these options. Given the jurisdictional challenges inherent to the Canadian federated system, the Commission finds that harmonized sport governance standards can be achieved only through sustained collaboration among federal, provincial, and territorial governments.

The Commission proposes a two-phased collaborative approach. Phase I (short term) would establish universal governance standards within the Multilateral Sport Framework outlined in Chapter 10. This would require provinces and territories to adopt governance standards aligned with nationally agreed criteria as a condition of receiving federal funding. The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada to include universal governance standards within the Multilateral Sport Framework and to require National Sport Organizations to amend their membership rules so that their Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations comply with their respective provincial or territorial governance standards.

Phase II (long term) would involve federal, provincial, and territorial collaboration to develop a Pan-Canadian Sport Governance Code that applies across all levels of sport. The Commission therefore calls on the Government of Canada, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, to pursue the development of this pan-Canadian code. All jurisdictions must work together toward uniform expectations and consistent governance practices across the country.

It is important for federal, provincial, and territorial governments to work together and not in silos. They have demonstrated collaboration is possible in several contexts, including healthcare, childcare, 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.

Chapter 15 – Building the future: investing in sport and physical activity

The Canadian sport system is a complex ecosystem that relies on various sources of funding to support athletes, organizations, events, and infrastructure. Funding comes from all levels of government as well as non-governmental sources.

The federal government primarily invests in national-level sport through Sport Canada’s three core funding programs: the Sport Support Program (including targeted components such as the Community Sport for All Initiative and Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities), the Athlete Assistance Program, and the Hosting Program. The Public Health Agency of Canada also funds initiatives that promote physical activity and healthy living. Most National Sport Organizations depend heavily on federal funding as their primary revenue source.

In turn, provincial and territorial funding for sport and physical activity varies considerably across the country. Each has programs to support athletes, provincial and territorial organizations, and initiatives. Municipalities also support local sport and physical activity programming. All levels of government invest in sport and recreation facilities.

A clear picture of a widespread funding crisis throughout the Canadian sport system clearly emerged during our work. Participants told us that federal funding has not kept pace with inflation, rising operational demands, or expanded governance and safe-sport responsibilities. They described a system where both sport organizations and athletes themselves are strained because the federal framework no longer reflects the true cost of delivering sport in Canada.

Throughout our engagement process, participants were clear that without renewed and increased federal investment, the system cannot meet its obligations to athletes, communities, or the public. We were told that an underfunded sport system is an unsafe sport system. They also underscored how athletes themselves need stronger federal support to manage their basic living costs and sustain the training and competition demands required to represent Canada.

Across the system, participants urged the federal government to establish a new, multi-year funding strategy that provides stability; aligns investments with safety, equity, access, and inclusion; and offers clear, transparent funding criteria for support. Many expressed serious concerns about the lack of robust auditing and monitoring of federally funded sport organizations. They cited inconsistent oversight, limited transparency, and unclear follow-through on compliance issues.

In our Preliminary Report, the Commission made several preliminary recommendations intended to address the funding crisis and improve the allocation of federal funds to support sport and physical activity in Canada. Participants widely supported these preliminary recommendations, emphasizing that they reflected the challenges facing the sport system. The Commission maintains them in this Final Report.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need to invest in the sport system

There is no doubt that the sport system is facing a funding crisis. The current federal funding has not kept pace with inflation or the system’s demands. In the face of this funding crisis, many organizations have reduced their programs and activities, and some may even be forced to cease operating if the funding gaps persist. Inadequate resources negatively impact both the accessibility and the quality of their programs.

Therefore, the Commission calls on the Government of Canada to urgently increase core funding for National Sport Organizations to account for inflation since 2005. Additional funding is needed to support National Disability sport, Para sport, and Paralympic sport organizations given the additional costs they face to meet the needs of athletes with disabilities.

To ensure the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of Canada’s sport system, we call on the Government of Canada to regularly review and adjust all core funding under the Sport Support Program. This funding, allocated to National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes, should be adequate to support operational needs and long-term priorities, including safe sport. Providing appropriate support to federally funded sport organizations is essential to protect the safety of everyone involved in the sport system.

That said, the Commission understands that funding alone cannot resolve systemic issues. Everyone involved in the sport system has a responsibility and duty to carefully review their own practices, structures, and spending. The sport community must recognize the need for efficiencies and work to achieve them within their own organizations and across the broader sport system.

To address inefficiencies in the sport system, we call on the federal government to require National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes to undertake operational efficiency reviews. These organizations have a duty to seek efficiencies to ensure public funds are being used effectively, including by establishing shared services and pursuing amalgamation.

Increased and continued investments in community-level sport are also required to strengthen Canada’s sport system, and to promote access and inclusion. We call on the federal government to increase its funding for programs that support community sport such as the Community Sport for All Initiative, which is expected to end in 2026. In addition to enhancing this direct federal support, the Government of Canada should collaborate with provinces and territories to increase their investments in community-level sport. We believe that the promotion of broad sport participation should eventually become a criterion under the Multilateral Sport Framework (outlined in Chapter 10).

We also recognize the need for continued and increased funding to support Indigenous-led sport and Indigenous athletes in Canada. We therefore call on the Government of Canada to increase the funding they provide to support Indigenous-led sport and its athletes. To meet its commitments under the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action 81 to 91, the Government of Canada should increase funding for the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities component of the Sport Support Program. The Government of Canada should also collaborate with the provinces and territories to increase their financial contributions to support Indigenous sport through bilateral agreements.

The Commission finds that our national-level athletes continue to face significant financial pressures. Athletes told us that they struggle to meet basic living expenses while balancing their competition and training demands, and that strain affects both their well-being and performance. We call on the federal government to increase and regularly review funding for the Athlete Assistance Program to ensure that Canada’s high-performance athletes are adequately supported.

We recognize that Canadians, including our governments, are navigating profound challenges and tumultuous times. Governments are under pressure to fund priorities that are seen as more urgent. Still, as we work to strengthen national cohesion and build a resilient Canada, it is important to remember that sport can be an important vehicle for nation-building.

Sport and physical activity are essential investments in Canada’s health, social fabric, and economic vitality. They contribute to physical and mental well-being, strengthen communities, foster inclusion, develop life skills, and reduce long-term health and social costs. They also stimulate economic growth through tourism, events, infrastructure, and innovation. A strong, well-funded sport and physical activity system is an investment in Canada’s youth and the country’s future.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need to diversify funding for sport and physical activity

The Commission recognizes the need to ensure the financial health and viability of the Canadian sport system and to balance federal investments across sectors and jurisdictions. We strongly urge the Government of Canada to explore alternative revenue sources, including but not limited to taxation revenues from sport betting and taxes on professional sports, to support greater investment in sport and physical activity.

We emphasize that public funding must be complemented by non-governmental sources. We therefore call on all sport organizations, including National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes, to diversify their revenue streams through partnerships, collaborations, and sponsorships.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need to centralize federal funding and improve the application process and the monitoring of sport organizations

To respond to the need for new leadership in Canadian sport, the Commission concludes that federal funding for sport and physical activity must be centralized within a single Centralized Sport Entity. This Entity should become responsible for the allocation, distribution, and oversight of federal sport and physical activity funding, including the development of a long-term funding strategy.

The Commission also finds that federal funding applications must be clear, efficient, and accessible. We note that existing processes remain overly long, complex, and costly, and should be simplified to reduce administrative burden.

Finally, the Commission emphasizes that monitoring and auditing of federally funded sport organizations must be regular, proactive, and effective. They must ensure compliance with funding conditions (including good governance practices and safe sport requirements), appropriate use of public funds, and improved financial and operational accountability. Canadians need to trust that public funds are allocated and dispensed responsibly.

Findings and Calls to Action: the need for a new funding strategy for sport and physical activity

There is a clear need for a sustainable and long-term funding strategy for sport and physical activity programs in Canada. This strategy should guide federal investments and ensure that funding priorities are realigned to better reflect Canadians’ values.

We recognize the importance of high-performance sport in the Canadian sport landscape. However, we saw a disproportionate emphasis on high-performance sport and winning medals, which often came at the expense of developing sport at the community level and increasing access to sport and physical activity. The new funding strategy must appropriately balance high-performance sport and the broader goals of fostering a sport system that is safe, equitable, inclusive, and accessible for all.

We therefore call on the Government of Canada to develop a comprehensive multi-year and evidence-based funding strategy focused on safety, equity, access, and inclusion to guide the allocation of public funds to all federally funded sport and physical activity organizations. To ensure that resources are directed where they will have the most impact, we strongly encourage the Government of Canada to undertake a careful review of the eligibility and evaluation criteria of the Sport Support Program to align them with the new funding strategy.

Chapter 16 – Now what? A look toward the future

Canada’s sport system is at a pivotal point, struggling with fragmentation, inefficiency, and a lack of safety, transparency, and oversight that has eroded public trust. Participants are calling for a unified, accountable system that prioritizes safety, inclusion, accessibility, and strong governance.

We recognize the scale of change ahead to implement our Calls to Action. For this reason, this chapter outlines a phased approach that provides a path forward for implementing our Calls to Action. This approach prioritizes urgent action to address the safe sport crisis and the systemic weaknesses in the Canadian sport system, while coordinating federal, provincial, and territorial efforts to make deeper structural changes over time.

The Commission recommends that the implementation should proceed as follows:

To ensure consistent progress and maintain accountability, we call upon the Government of Canada to establish an independent monitor to oversee and publicly report on the implementation of our Calls to Action. We also call for the creation of a federal–provincial/territorial mechanism to support their implementation across jurisdictions.

Conclusion

Sport in Canada stands at a defining moment. The current sport system—fragmented, inconsistent, and too often unsafe—does not meet the expectations of Canadians. The proliferation of organizations and overlapping mandates led to inefficiencies, duplications, a lack of alignment, and confusion, while conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency, and limited oversight of sport organizations has further undermined trust in the sport system. Persistent gaps in leadership and coordination across all levels have compounded these problems. Participants have voiced concerns about barriers to access, governance failures, and experiences of harm, and they have called for a sport system grounded in safety, inclusion, accessibility, and accountability.

Addressing the safe sport crisis requires not only structural reform but also a harmonized country-wide approach to safe sport. A more coherent, accountable, and participant-centred sport system is both necessary and within reach.

While our report is delivered to the Government of Canada, its message extends to everyone who shapes and supports sport and physical activity in Canada. Meaningful transformation and lasting changes cannot rest with the federal government alone. They require coordinated action from all levels of government and from the sport sector as a whole. We trust that the need for change, leadership, and the approaches we suggest in our report will resonate throughout the sport and physical activity communities and spur meaningful action at every level.

Our Calls to Action respond to the systemic failures we examined. They offer more than structural adjustments—they present an opportunity to rebuild trust, restore integrity, and fundamentally rethink how sport is governed and delivered in Canada. They lay out a path toward a system that is safer, more transparent, more equitable, and better aligned with the values Canadians expect to see reflected in sport.

Achieving this vision will require deliberate, disciplined, and sustained effort. Transformation must be accompanied by strong leadership, clear accountability, and a commitment to implementation—not just policy creation. Success will depend on collaboration between all levels of government, a renewed focus on participant well-being, and ongoing attention to public trust. Canadians expect a system that protects them, includes them, and supports their development throughout all stages of participation.

By acting on these Calls to Action, Canada can build a sport system that truly serves its people. Such a system would provide sport environments that are safe, equitable, and supportive for participants at every level and across all jurisdictions. This system would be transparent in its governance, appropriately funded, aligned in purposes and practices, and more accountable to those it serves. Safe sport would be non‐negotiable, and prevention measures to proactively reduce risks would be prioritized. Policies would be consistently implemented, fair and trusted complaint mechanisms would respond effectively to maltreatment, and participants would be supported throughout their involvement in sport, from the grassroots to high performance. Such a system eliminates unnecessary duplication, rationalizes programs, and expands safe, accessible, and welcoming opportunities for all.

Canada has an opportunity to be a global leader recognized for sporting excellence, and for the health, safety, happiness, and pride that sport inspires in our country.

Canadians are ready for a transformed, reinvigorated sport system that reflects their values and ambitions. This re-envisioned sport system will not emerge without deliberate and sustained effort. The path forward requires collaboration, disciplined implementation, and a shared commitment to public trust and participant well-being. This moment calls for leadership that is steady, principled, and aligned with the needs of those who rely on the system.

The work ahead is substantial, but achievable. And it must begin now.

Page details

2026-03-24