Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

Chapter 14: Prevention strategies: education, training and background screening

Part II — Safe sport in Canada

On this page

In addressing the prevention of maltreatment in sport, the Commission heard about several prevention strategies. This chapter focuses on education and training on one hand and background screening processes on the other, two preventative measures which were most frequently highlighted by participants throughout the Commission’s work.

We begin by examining safe sport education and training programs and initiatives, followed by an overview of existing background screening policies across the sport system. For both topics, we share the input received from participants in our engagement process. We then briefly explore the duty to report in sport.

We conclude this chapter with our preliminary findings and recommendations as they relate to safe sport education, training and background screenings. These preliminary recommendations further the goal of building capacity for prevention in the sport system.

In addition to education, training and background screening, we recognize that national sport organizations and other sport bodies may implement additional prevention measures and tools tailored to their specific contexts. These efforts, while not the focus of this chapter, are important components of a broader safe sport strategy.

We also recognize that clear and comprehensive safe sport policies are another important tool for prevention. We review the current state of safe sport policies and codes of conduct in Chapter 15 and address policy considerations alongside our preliminary recommendations related to safe sport complaint mechanisms in Chapter 16.

Another effective mean of preventing maltreatment in sport is the use of databases or registries that track individuals whose eligibility to participate in sport has been restricted. We outline the existing registries and share our preliminary recommendations in relation to them in Chapter 17.

Education and training programs

Education and training are essential to the prevention of maltreatment in sport and the promotion of safe and inclusive sport environments for all. There is a wide range of education and training initiatives specific to safe sport currently in place across the Canadian sport system. These initiatives span all levels, from grassroots to high-performance, and reflect efforts by various sport organizations to promote safer, more respectful, and inclusive sport environments.

Given the breadth and diversity of these initiatives, the Commission was not able to examine all of them within the scope of its mandate. The following sections therefore outline a selection of notable safe sport education and training programs, projects and movements that were most frequently referenced by participants in our engagement process, or that illustrate trends and practices in this field. For each of them, we provide the perspectives shared with us by participants.

National Coaching Certification Program

The Government of Canada, through Sport Canada, supports the Coaching Association of Canada in the development and harmonization of coaching education across the nation.Footnote 1 As mentioned in Chapter 3, the Coaching Association of Canada partners with most National Sport Organizations to deliver coaching education in the form of the National Coaching Certification Program.Footnote 2 It also works with Provincial and Territorial Coaching Representatives who deliver the program in their respective jurisdictions. In fact, all the provinces and territories have a regional representative.Footnote 3

The National Coaching Certification Program is used across 65 sports and provides a standardized coach education and certification program.Footnote 4 Notably, one of its training modules is the Safe Sport Training module. This module teaches coaches to “make decisions that promote athletes’ physical and mental well-being.”Footnote 5 It takes the form of a 90-minute eLearning which addresses:

At the national level of sport, the Government of Canada requires National Sport Organization coaches to possess certain certifications from the National Coaching Certification Program. This is a condition for the sport organization to receive funding for coaching salaries and professional development under the Sport Support Program.Footnote 7 To be eligible for this funding, coaches must meet the following training requirements:

Coach training requirements also exist at the provincial and territorial level of sport. For example, to be eligible to receive government funding in Ontario, Provincial Sport Organizations must certify their coaches through a formal sport-specific certification program that is either conducted through the National Coaching Certification Program or another approved equivalent.Footnote 9

Another example is Alberta, which requires Provincial Sport Organizations to follow “appropriate” leadership and training standards for coaches, like “those exemplified in the National Coaching Certification Program or equivalent program.”Footnote 10 Meeting these standards is a condition to be considered for provincial funding under the Association Development Grant Program (core funding).Footnote 11

Moreover, grassroots or local level sport organizations such as clubs and associations may also require their coaches to get specific certifications or complete trainings.

Safe sport education under the Abuse-Free Sport Program and the Canadian Safe Sport Program

As outlined in Chapter 5, effective April 1, 2025, the adoption of the Canadian Safe Sport Program is a mandatory requirement for National Sport Organizations, National Multisport Service Organizations, and Canadian Sport Centres and Institutes to receive funding from Sport Canada under the Sport Support Program.Footnote 12 We examine the Canadian Safe Sport Program in detail in Chapter 16.

The Canadian Safe Sport Program Rules provide that adopting sport organizations must ensure that all participants to the program complete the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s Safe Sport e-learning module.Footnote 13 These participants generally include an adopting sport organization’s national and international level athletes, employees and board members, national level coaches and athlete support personnel.Footnote 14

The Safe Sport e-learning module provides education on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (discussed in Chapter 15) and on the complaint mechanism of the Canadian Safe Sport Program (Chapter 16).Footnote 15

We also note that similar education requirements existed under the Abuse-Free Sport Program.Footnote 16 However, instead of offering its own education program like the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner accredited existing trainings and courses that met Sport Canada’s standards. Two of the available programs were the Safe Sport Training offered by the Coaching Association of Canada and the Respect in Sport Training offered by the Respect Group Inc.Footnote 17

Other safe sport education programs

Many other safe sport education programs and trainings are offered by a range of organizations. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples:

We note that the above-mentioned education programs were accredited safe sport education or trainings under the Abuse-Free Sport Program.Footnote 19 We were informed that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport intends to continue to accredit education programs that meet national standards.

Participant perspectives on education and training programs

Many participants in our activities emphasized that education is crucial for preventing maltreatment and building safe sport environments. They generally agreed that safe sport education should be available for all participants in sport, including athletes, coaches, officials, parents and staff (including leadership teams, sports medicine, boards of directors and volunteers). Participants also emphasized the need for prevention at the grassroots level of sport.

It was also suggested that safe sport training should be mandatory for all athletes and coaches (including full-time and part-time coaches, independent contractors, volunteers, apprentices), and that there should be consequences for those who do not complete mandatory training.

We heard that parents should also receive safe sport education, as issues often arise from parents having unrealistic expectations for their children.

Participants suggested that everyone, from athletes to parents, should receive the same information. This would help everyone recognize inappropriate behaviour.

Content of the safe sport training

While many participants believe that safe sport training is beneficial, we have learned that the existing training has flaws. A common concern, particularly among coaches, is that it tends to focus too much on what not to do, and not enough on what to do to create safe sport environments. We were told that safe sport training needs to clearly explain which behaviours are inappropriate and give coaches and others the practical tools they need to succeed, such as best practices and examples of positive behaviours to follow.

Furthermore, we were advised that the content of some training programs had not been updated for years. This content should be modernized to reflect current society’s expectations. For example, we were repeatedly told that most trainings do not address racism, sexism, hazing, digital harms, social media or how to coach kids.

Participants proposed that safe sport education should include information and training on the following topics:

In addition to the points above, more education is needed on the complaint management processes. Athletes, coaches, parents and other participants suggested that safe sport education should focus on the complaint process, which includes how to file a complaint, what it means to file a complaint, and what a valid complaint is.Footnote 20

Finally, we heard that at the university and college level, the safe sport training provided is often a general program applicable to all post-secondary sports. It often lacks information specific to each institution, which can leave students unaware of the complaint mechanism(s) available to them.

Effectiveness of safe sport training

Beyond the content of the training programs, we were told that their current format is not effective. Most trainings are delivered through online courses or e-Learning. Some participants described these trainings as useless and often referred to them as mere “check box exercises.”

Some felt that there should be in-person learning opportunities, while others indicated that the virtual option could be beneficial but needed to have interactive components. Numerous participants believed that a 90-minute e-Learning course was not enough to truly understand safe sport. Multisport Service Organizations and safe sport educators who offer in-person training explained that this format helped participants understand safe sport better.

It was noted that it takes time and practice to build a better and safer sport culture. Individuals who work in safe sport education noted that the frequency of training also has an impact on whether it leads to a significant cultural change or if it is merely a “performative” exercise.

Volume and duplication of training

Participants noted the absence of coordination of safe sport education and uniform national standards on what constitutes appropriate and adequate safe sport education. Many remarked that no single body is responsible for providing training and education on safe sport in Canada.

This lack of coordination meant participants were frequently asked to take very similar safe sport courses offered by different groups, one after another.

The demands on coaches, especially the number of training sessions now required by sport organizations, are also increasing. Many commented that the volume of training for coaches is overwhelming and often repeats the same information.

We were told that, in many cases, it can take more than 15 hours to complete the required training sessions to achieve a certain coaching status. For example, in some cases, National Sport Organizations require their coaches to complete the National Coaching Certification Program and a coaching certification program offered by the National Sport Organization. It was suggested that training needs to be practical for parents and not daunting or unreasonable.

We note that the concerns about the volume and cost of required training were regularly raised by sport participants at the grassroots level of sport, where most coaches are volunteers. In fact, many of these coaches are parents who are coaching “on the side of their desk.”

Project Lighthouse

Project Lighthouse was a collaborative initiative led by the Canadian Olympic Committee with support from Sport Canada. The initial funding of Project Lighthouse was announced on May 1, 2023. Its goal was to promote and align safe sport through education, collaboration, and communication.Footnote 21 Through Project Lighthouse, $2 million was invested in creating or improving safe sport education modules, providing grants and financial support, and helping provincial collaboration work.

The Canadian Olympic Committee worked with partners from multiple levels of sport to accelerate safe sport initiatives in a coordinated way. These partners included:Footnote 22

As part of Project Lighthouse, the Coaching Association of Canada launched the Quality Coaching Campaign.Footnote 23 This campaign raised awareness of the resources available for coaches, administrators and parents, such as their e-learning modules and training programs. These included the Safe Sport Training e-learning module and the Coaching Athletes with a Disability e-learning module of the National Coaching Certification Program.

Project Lighthouse also supported the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport in developing three new modules to advance safe sport education:

  1. Safe Sport 2025, an e-learning module on the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (discussed in Chapter 15) and on the Centre’s independent complaint mechanism (discussed in Chapter 16).
  2. Understanding Competition Manipulation, an e-learning module on how to prevent competition manipulation that was made mandatory for Team Canada at the 2024 Paris Olympics.
  3. Health Care Practitioners Module, a module that was mandatory for the health care practitioners at the 2024 Paris Olympics. It provided guidelines on how to provide safe health care that follows the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.

A key part of Project Lighthouse was the provincial collaboration which brought together viaSport (British Columbia), Sport’Aide (Quebec) and Sport Nova Scotia. Leaders from these provincial organizations met to share safe sport practices and programs. They also worked together to expand the reach of their existing programs and resources beyond their own provinces.

For example, this collaboration led to:

Participant perspectives on Project Lighthouse

Project Lighthouse was the first attempt to coordinate safe sport education. In this respect, participants in our engagement process, including provinces, expressed a desire and need for better harmonization and coordination of safe sport education and awareness.

Participants also affirmed that leadership and support are needed because of the fragmented nature of the sport system. There is concern that Project Lighthouse is ending and they noted that investments are needed to further improve coordination.

True Sport Movement

The True Sport Movement was created after the federal, Provincial and Territorial ministers responsible for sport enacted the Declaration of Expectations for Fairness in Sport (the London Declaration) in August 2001.Footnote 24 It was founded to promote ethical practices and values-based behaviours in sport and to create a culture where athletes, coaches, organizations and communities prioritize positive, respectful and fair engagement in sport, rather than focusing solely on outcomes like winning.Footnote 25

Until February 2025, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport administered the True Sport program, based on education and community engagement. Guided by the values of fairness, excellence, inclusion and fun, True Sport was a values-based approach to sport built on seven principles: Go For It, Fair Play, Respect Others, Keep It Fun, Stay Healthy, Include Everyone and Give Back.Footnote 26

Through educational campaigns, resources and partnerships with various organizations, True Sport helped to develop a shared understanding of ethical behaviour in sport, creating a space where participants could thrive.Footnote 27

Practically speaking, the True Sport Movement engaged a broad range of stakeholders, including sport organizations, schools, community organizations, coaches, teams, athletes, officials and event organizers, to commit to fostering and demonstrating a culture of “good sport,” values-driven sport.Footnote 28 Individuals and organizations were required to sign the True Sport Declaration to formalize the agreement among all members to uphold the True Sport Principles.Footnote 29 By becoming a member of the True Sport Movement, individuals and organizations committed to training, competing and offering sport experiences, including championships and tournaments, that aligned with these True Sport Principles.Footnote 30 The program was widely adopted in many levels of sport across Canada, from grassroots organizations to professional sport leagues.Footnote 31

True Sport also offered a variety of online resources and tools to help True Sport Members promote True Sport and activate values-based sport. These resources included:

In February 2025, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport announced its decision to discontinue the work it was doing with the True Sport program.Footnote 33 It stated that it was due to a conflict of interest arising from its expanding role in the administration of the complaint mechanism and its collaborative work with sport organizations through the True Sport Program.Footnote 34 During the Commission’s discussions with participants, many echoed this concern, stating that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport could not effectively maintain independence while also engaging in close partnership with the sport community.

Participant perspectives on the True Sport movement

The importance of prevention was highlighted during many of our meetings. Many participants, including one provincial government, mentioned True Sport as being a model vehicle to share exemplary approaches to safe sport. We were told by many that True Sport was about more than providing education. It was rooted in social change.

True Sport promoted social change by encouraging and working with sport organizations to adopt the programs’ values and principles. This program was about identifying “founding values” and incorporating and embracing behaviours that align with them. Participants noted that by identifying True Sport Principles and delivering its programs and services, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport provided necessary tools to create positive, values-based sport experiences and positive sport cultures.

Many participants noted the wide reach of the program. For example, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport hosted Activation Workshops where National Sport Organizations learned how to integrate True Sport into their policies, programs and practices. We received information indicating that there were 5,640 True Sport members as of October 9, 2024. These members include 2,089 sport organizations (such as National Sport Organizations, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, and Multisport Service Organizations), 594 schools, 380 teams, 293 coaches and 116 athletes.

We heard of incidents of maltreatment and inappropriate behaviours occurring even in sport organizations that had adopted the True Sport Principles. Some participants also felt that the True Sport program had limited reach throughout the sport system. They noted that while it was a great program, it did not get a lot of uptake. This was partly attributed to the abstract nature of the concept of “values-based” sport.

Nevertheless, there is concern in the sport community that the progress made with True Sport will be lost now that the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport is no longer administering the program. We were told that it is important for the True Sport program to continue, and that another Multisport Service Organization who already has ties to the sport community, or a new entity, could take over its administration.

Responsible Coaching Movement’s Rule of Two

The Coaching Association of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport jointly established the Responsible Coaching Movement. Footnote 35 This movement is a call to action for sport organizations, parents, and coaches to implement responsible coaching practices across Canada, both on and off the field of play. Footnote 36

The Responsible Coaching Movement invites all coaches and sport organizations to learn and apply consistent safety principles.Footnote 37 It offers crucial elements, resources and processes to follow for sport to be Safe, Smart and Secure for all. These resources focus on the three pillars of the Responsible Coaching Movement: The Rule of Two, Background Screenings, and Ethics training.Footnote 38 We understand that these principles have been adopted by sport organizations across the country to prevent maltreatment in sport.

A common practice that was frequently brought to our attention is the Rule of Two. This rule requires two responsible adults (coach, staff, parent or screened volunteer) be present with a sport participant at all times.Footnote 39 The goal of the Rule of Two is to ensure all interactions and communications are open, observable and justifiable.Footnote 40

Participant perspectives on the Rule of Two

We understand that the Rule of Two is considered a helpful and, by some, essential rule to help prevent maltreatment in sport. However, there were mixed views on how widely it is used and how effective it is.

For instance, we heard from numerous victims and survivors who explained that maltreatment occurs in front of bystanders who look the other way. We were also told that some sport organizations claim to adopt the Rule of Two but do not actually enforce it.

Moreover, although the Rule of Two is well known at the national level of sport, we were advised it is less common at the grassroots level. For example, a local level coach explained that while coaches were familiar with the rule, the families they work with were not. Additionally, it was noted that the Rule of Two could prevent participation by creating transportation challenges in rural or remote communities.

Background screenings

Background screenings serve a vital role in creating and maintaining safe environments, including work and sport environments.Footnote 41 A background screening is a process to ensure that individuals in positions of trust or authority within sport organizations, such as coaches, staff and volunteers, meet certain requirements to participate in sport.Footnote 42 This process helps identify individuals who may pose a risk to the organization or its participants.Footnote 43

As will be discussed below, sport organizations across the country have developed policies and procedures to screen their coaches, staff and volunteers.Footnote 44 In certain jurisdictions, sport organizations are required to implement screening policies to receive government funding.

Although it may not always be required, background screening has become a common practice in the sport community.Footnote 45 Nevertheless, as noted in the Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage entitled “Safe Sport in Canada,” the use of background checks remains inconsistent across the country.Footnote 46

The Coaching Association of Canada has developed resources to help sport organizations develop their background screening procedures.Footnote 47 These include a reference document called the “Background Screening Policy and Process Considerations for Sport Organizations,” the “Background Screening Matrix” and a template screening policy.Footnote 48

In essence, the Association encourages sport organizations to assess the level of risk of each applicant coach, staff or volunteer, and to adapt their screening measures accordingly.Footnote 49 The highest level of risk is generally associated with paid head coaches, travel team coaches and team managers.Footnote 50

Screening tools

The screening tools namely include:

There is an important distinction between a criminal record check and a vulnerable sector check. Criminal record checks determine if a person has been convicted of a crime.Footnote 52 In contrast, vulnerable sector checks are a specific type of police information check that includes a search for any pardons or record of suspensions related to sexual offences.Footnote 53 Vulnerable sector checks were created to protect children and vulnerable persons. These checks can only be conducted by the police agency where the applicant lives.Footnote 54

More generally, some sport organizations rely on private companies that offer background check solutions.Footnote 55 For example, the Coaching Association of Canada has partnered with Sterling Talent Solutions to provide online criminal record checks.Footnote 56

Screening requirements

There is no legislative requirement for National Sport Organizations to implement screening policies. We understand, however, that most of the National Sport Organizations have adopted screening policies.Footnote 57

It is also important to note that coaches working for National Sport Organizations must provide a police record check for the organization to receive federal funding for their salaries. More specifically, coaches must submit one of the following, or an equivalent, to their National Sport Organization:

Screening policies are required in certain jurisdictions. For instance, in Ontario, Provincial Sport Organizations must have a “screening” policy in order to be recognized by the province and receive government funding.Footnote 59 The type of required screening is not specified.

Similarly, Designated Provincial Sport Organizations in British Columbia must have a policy outlining “procedures that uphold the Criminal Record Review Act, including requirements for employees and volunteers to obtain Criminal Record Checks.”Footnote 60

Even when background screening policies are not required as a condition of funding, sport organizations may voluntarily choose to implement such policies for their personnel.

At the grassroots level, sport clubs and community associations can choose to develop and implement background screening policies for persons in positions of trust or authority, such as coaches and volunteers.Footnote 61

Participant perspectives on screenings

There is a broad consensus that background screenings, often referred to by participants as “background checks”, are an essential tool to prevent abuse and maltreatment. Many participants, including victims, survivors and parents of children who were abused, strongly believe that screenings must be mandatory. This is especially crucial when hiring coaches who will be interacting with children or other vulnerable persons.

Participants emphasized the importance of background checks for coaches because of the significant power imbalance between coaches and athletes. There is also a general consensus that the requirement for background checks should extend to all individuals in positions of trust. This includes officials, referees and volunteers who work with children and other vulnerable persons, such as persons with disabilities.

Sport organizations often require background checks as a part of their onboarding process for coaches and other persons in positions of authority, like officials and referees. Notably, most National Sport Organizations have screening policies that require criminal record checks for individuals interacting with the public and vulnerable persons.

That said, while screening practices are common in sport, participants expressed concern that there are no standardized screening requirements across the country. In this respect, screening procedures at the grassroots level of sport may not be as detailed or strict. We were also reminded that screening procedures can place an administrative burden on organizations that are already facing financial and resource limitations.

To remedy the inconsistent screening policies, participants suggested establishing standard national screening practices and guidelines that would apply consistently across all jurisdictions. Others recommended implementing mechanisms to make screenings transferable between jurisdictions and sport organizations, reducing the burden of separate screenings.

Throughout our discussions, many indicated that current screening practices were not enough to protect the public. There was a widespread view that more needs to be done to enhance background checks and better protect the public.

On multiple occasions, we were informed of situations raising serious questions about the effectiveness and enforcement of background screening policies and practices. For example:

Many participants were also concerned that screenings are not periodic. It appears that in most cases, background checks are only conducted when an individual first joins an organization. This could be insufficient as some individuals remain with organizations for many years.

We also observed that sport organizations are increasingly relying on private companies, rather than the local police services, to conduct criminal background checks. This is due to the fact that private companies can process these checks online with a fast turnaround time. It was also noted that vulnerable sector checks, which can only be carried out by local police services, are significantly more expensive than standard criminal background checks.

The duty to report in sport

We note that other tools and mechanisms exist to assist in detecting and addressing maltreatment in sport. The duty to report in sport is one of them.

Canadian child welfare laws impose, under certain circumstances, a legal duty to report suspected or known child abuse or neglect to local child welfare services, provincial/territorial social service ministries or departments or local police.Footnote 62

Outside of child protection legislation, the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport also provides for a duty to report concerns of inappropriate conduct in sport. As will be further discussed in Chapter 15, the Universal Code of Conduct sets harmonized rules to be adopted by national level sport organizations funded by the Government of Canada to promote a respectful sport culture.

In addition to defining various forms of maltreatment, the Universal Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits certain behaviours that, while not constituting maltreatment themselves, are nonetheless prohibited. Specifically, section 5.11 of the Code states that failing to report possible maltreatment is a prohibited behaviour.Footnote 63 The Code thus establishes a contractual obligation for every adult participant who adheres to its principles to report any instance of prohibited behaviour (as defined in the Code) committed by another participant against a person.

Consequently, an adult participant violates the Code if they knew, or reasonably ought to have known, about another participant’s prohibited conduct and failed to report it. Such failure to report may result in sanctions, whose scope and severity are detailed in section 7 of the Universal Code of Conduct.Footnote 64

Despite the existence of these protective mechanisms, we were told about numerous situations in which individuals were aware of maltreatment or abuse and chose not to report it.

Prevention of maltreatment in sport: preliminary findings and recommendations

Many participants emphasized, and the Commission agrees, that prevention of maltreatment in sport settings is as important, if not more important, than reacting to it after it has occurred.

Prevention is the cornerstone of a sustainable and effective safe sport strategy. A system that focuses solely on remediation can never truly be safe as it waits for harm to occur before acting. In contrast, prevention creates a culture and a framework designed to minimize the risk of maltreatment occurring in the first place.

It is imperative to note that emphasis on prevention is not only about ensuring safety within sport. It is about protecting the well-being of society more broadly. Sport touches the lives of many Canadians, including children, families, and communities, and plays a significant role in daily life. Because so many people are involved in sport in some way, creating safe sport environments has a broader societal importance.

Strengthening prevention efforts is also urgent. Ensuring the safety of children and other vulnerable participants in sport is a critical step that cannot wait any longer. Without a stronger focus on preventing harm, we risk continuing cycles of maltreatment that impact individuals and communities alike.

Throughout the Commission’s work, participants identified two main strategies for preventing maltreatment in sport: education and training, and rigorous background screening protocols. These critical strategies help athletes, parents, officials, coaches, and other stakeholders recognize unhealthy behaviours and act before situations escalate.

Education and training: preliminary findings

The Commission found that a wide range of safe sport education and training initiatives are currently in place across the Canadian sport system. These initiatives, implemented by various sport and multisport service organizations, extend from the grassroots level to high-performance sport. They reflect a collective effort to promote safer, more respectful, and inclusive sport environments. Despite the numerous safe sport education and training efforts, the Commission’s work highlights several areas for improvement.

Delivering education and training to all stakeholders

Safe sport education and training must be delivered to all stakeholders across the sport system. This includes not only to coaches and athletes, but also to parents, officials, administrators, volunteers, support staff, and even children in age-appropriate ways. Everyone involved in sport plays a role in creating and maintaining a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment. Limiting education to only certain groups undermines the collective responsibility required to prevent and respond to maltreatment.

Going beyond identifying maltreatment in sport

Safe sport education and training should be more comprehensive. We need to move beyond a narrow focus on identifying maltreatment in sport. While it is essential to understand abuse, harassment and other forms of harm, modern safe sport programs must also include training on broader social issues that impact athlete well-being and safety. This includes, for example, informed consent, anti-racism, equity, diversity and inclusion. These topics are essential for fostering respectful and supportive sport environments.

In our view, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s True Sport initiative, developed to encourage ethical practices and values-based behaviours in sport, played, and could continue to play, a significant role in improving sport environments. Although this initiative does not specifically focus on safe sport issues, it promotes social change by identifying “founding values” and encouraging conduct that aligns with these values. By emphasizing fairness, respect, inclusion, and responsibility, True Sport fosters a culture of positive engagement in sport. It ultimately contributes to a safer and more supportive environment for all participants.

Varying education and training formats

Relying mostly on online modules and e-learning formats has proven ineffective in fostering meaningful engagement and behaviour change. More interactive and in-person training sessions are needed to encourage dialogue, reflection, and learning among athletes, coaches, and sport leaders.

Coordinating the approach to delivering safe sport education

The current delivery model of safe sport education programs is fragmented and often ineffective. Multiple organizations offer overlapping or duplicative courses that lead to confusion and inefficiencies. There is a clear need for a more coordinated and centralized approach to delivering safe sport education programs throughout the country to ensure consistency in messaging, reduce redundancy, and improve the overall impact of education and training.

A good example of a more targeted and structured effort is Project Lighthouse. In our view, Project Lighthouse demonstrates how a unified approach can improve both the reach and effectiveness of safe sport education. As we will discuss below, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport also intends to develop a safe sport education plan.

Participants, including provincial and territorial governments, also cited the fragmented nature of the sport system to emphasize the need for leadership and support in safe sport education and training. In the Commission’s view, it is critical that the Government of Canada takes a leadership role in improving harmonization and coordination, reach, content and efficiency of safe sport education and training across the sport system.

We also note that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, in its 2023 Report entitled “Time to Listen to Survivors: Taking Action Towards Creating a Safe Sport Environment for all Athletes in Canada,” outlined different ways the Government of Canada can address maltreatment in sport. In relation to education and training, the Standing Committee notably recommended that:

Education and training: preliminary recommendations

At the federal level, the Commission recommends that:

  1. The Government of Canada partner with stakeholders such as Multisport Service Organizations and launch a national public awareness campaign to inform the public about safe sport, including (i) best practices and good behaviours to foster safe sport environments and (ii) the various forms of maltreatment in sport, including abuse, harassment and discrimination.
  2. The Government of Canada (i) take a leadership role, (ii) partner with stakeholders such as Multisport Service Organizations and (iii) provide the necessary resources in order to develop a single comprehensive, interactive and efficient national safe sport education program. This program must include chapters tailored to meet the needs of all stakeholders involved in sport. This will ensure safe sport education is consistent, accessible and specific to each role across the entire sport system. The stakeholders include athletes (children and adults), parents, coaches, volunteers, employees, referees, officials, administrators and members of board of directors.
  3. The Government of Canada engage and collaborate with its provincial and territorial counterparts and Indigenous groups, to develop the national safe sport education program.
  4. The Government of Canada:
    1. mandate that all individuals involved in sport organizations receiving federal funding, namely athletes (children and adults), parents, coaches, volunteers, employees, referees, officials, administrators and members of board of directors, complete the appropriate chapter of the national safe sport education program; and
    2. provide the resources necessary to deliver the program to federally funded sport organizations.
  5. The Government of Canada:
    1. mandate that all National Sport Organizations receiving federal funding modify their membership rules to require of their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations that all individuals involved in their respective sport organization, namely athletes (children and adults), parents, coaches, volunteers, employees, referees, officials, administrators and members of board of directors, complete the appropriate chapter of the national safe sport education program; and
    2. provide the resources necessary to deliver the program to the member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations of federally funded National Sport Organizations.
  6. The Government of Canada, in determining the level of funding allocated to National Sport Organizations, take into account the extent to which the national safe sport education program is delivered to their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.

At the provincial and territorial level, the Commission recommends that:

  1. The Government of Canada:
    1. encourage its provincial and territorial counterparts to mandate that all individuals involved in sport organizations receiving provincial or territorial funding, namely athletes (children and adults), parents, coaches, volunteers, employees, referees, officials, administrators and members of board of directors, complete the chapter of the national safe sport education program relevant to their roles; and
    2. provide the resources necessary to deliver the program to sport organizations receiving provincial or territorial funding.
  2. The Government of Canada:
    1. encourage its provincial and territorial counterparts to mandate that Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations receiving provincial or territorial funding modify their membership rules to require of their member Community Sport Organizations that all individuals involved in their respective sport organization, including athletes (children and adults), parents, coaches, volunteers, employees, referees, officials, administrators and members of board of directors, complete the appropriate chapter of the national safe sport education program; and
    2. provide the resources necessary to deliver the program to the member Community Sport Organizations of provincially and territorially funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.
  3. The Government of Canada encourage its provincial and territorial counterparts to consider, in determining the level of funding allocated to Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, the extent to which the national safe sport education program is delivered to their member Community Sport Organizations.
  4. The responsibility for developing, updating and delivering the National Safe Sport Education Program across all levels of sport be assigned to the Centralized Sport Entity (outlined in Chapter 6). Until the Government of Canada establishes this entity, these responsibilities should reside with the Multisport Service Organization(s) mandated by Sport Canada, under the supervision of Sport Canada.

The Commission also recommends that:

  1. The Government of Canada ensure the continued delivery of the True Sport Program. With the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport no longer delivering the program, responsibility for True Sport should be transferred to an independent organization capable of advancing its mission and expanding its reach across the Canadian sport system. This responsibility should also be assigned to the Centralized Sport Entity external to Sport Canada (referenced in Chapter 6) once it is established. In the meantime, True Sport should be transferred to an independent Multisport Service Organization.

Background screenings: preliminary findings

The work of the Commission highlights a strong consensus that screening processes for coaches, officials, referees, staff, and volunteers, are essential to maintaining safe and secure sport environments. Screening processes include criminal record checks, vulnerable sector checks, screening disclosure forms, letters of reference and interviews.

As for education and training, sport organizations across the country have developed policies and procedures to screen their coaches, staff and volunteers. Sometimes they do this because it is a mandatory requirement for funding, and sometimes it is on a voluntary basis. That said, the implementation and scope of such procedures remain inconsistent nationwide.

For example, Sport Canada requires National Sport Organizations to obtain background checks from coaches as a condition for receiving federal funding for coaches’ salaries. These checks include “an Enhanced Police Information Center (E-PIC) check, Vulnerable Sector Search (VSS), Vulnerable Sector Verification (VSV), Vulnerable Sector Check (VSC), or equivalent.”Footnote 70

At the provincial and territorial level, Ontario requires that Provincial Sport Organizations have a “screening” policy to be recognized by the province and receive government funding.Footnote 71 The same goes for British Columbia, which requires that its designated provincial sport organizations implement criminal record checks for employees and volunteers.Footnote 72

As for the scope of these policies, the Commission observes that most National Sport Organizations have screening policies requiring criminal record checks for individuals who interact with the public and vulnerable persons. However, it has come to light that these checks are often less comprehensive than vulnerable sector checks, which include both a police information check and an assessment to determine whether an individual has a record of a suspension (pardon) for sexual offences. The primary reason for this gap appears to be the prohibitive cost of and time required for vulnerable sector checks, which can only be conducted by local Canadian police services.

We believe that ensuring safe sport environments requires the consistent implementation of harmonized background screening procedures across all levels of sport, and that the Government of Canada has a vital leadership role to play in establishing and supporting this national standard.

Background screenings: preliminary recommendations

In its 2024 report entitled “Safe Sport in Canada,” the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage recommended that “all organizations in Canada receiving federal money require a vulnerable sector police check for all volunteers, coaches and employees in contact with athletes and that an audit mechanism be set up to prove that such checks have been carried out.”Footnote 73

The Commission strongly endorses the implementation of mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks as a vital measure to protect and uphold safe sport environments. We also believe that these checks must be subsidized by the Government of Canada.

Consequently, at the federal level, the Commission recommends that:

  1. The Government of Canada:
    1. mandate that all sport organizations receiving federal funding conduct Vulnerable Sector Checks for all coaches, officials, referees, volunteers, and employees in contact with athletes, and require that these checks be conducted periodically; and
    2. subsidize the cost of the mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks for all sport organizations receiving federal funding.
  2. The Government of Canada:
    1. mandate that all National Sport Organizations receiving federal funding modify their membership rules to require of their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations that they conduct Vulnerable Sector Checks for all coaches, officials, referees, volunteers, and employees in contact with athletes and require that these checks be conducted periodically; and
    2. subsidize the cost of the mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks for member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations of federally funded National Sport Organizations.
  3. The Government of Canada, in determining the level of funding allocated to National Sport Organizations, consider the extent to which the mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks are conducted by their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.

At the provincial/territorial level, the Commission recommends that:

  1. The Government of Canada:
    1. encourage its provincial and territorial counterparts to mandate that all sport organizations receiving provincial or territorial funding conduct Vulnerable Sector Checks for all coaches, officials, referees, volunteers, and employees who have direct contact with athletes, and require that these checks be conducted periodically; and
    2. provide conditional grants to provinces and territories to allow them to subsidize the cost of mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks for all sport organizations receiving provincial and territorial funding.
  2. The Government of Canada:
    1. encourage its provincial and territorial counterparts to mandate that all Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations receiving provincial or territorial funding modify their membership rules to require of their member Community Sport Organizations that they conduct Vulnerable Sector Checks for all coaches, officials, referees, volunteers, and employees in contact with athletes, and require that these checks be conducted periodically; and
    2. provide conditional grants to provinces and territories to allow them to subsidize the cost of mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks for member Community Sport Organizations of provincially and territorially funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.
  3. The Government of Canada encourage its provincial and territorial counterparts to consider, in determining the level of funding allocated to Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, the extent to which the mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks are conducted by their member Community Sport Organizations.
  4. Responsibility for (i) subsidizing the cost of mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks for federally funded sport organizations and member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations of federally funded National Sport Organizations and (ii) providing conditional grants to provinces and territories (to allow them to subsidize the cost of mandatory Vulnerable Sector Checks for sport organizations receiving provincial and territorial funding and for member Community Sport Organizations of provincially/territorially funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations) be assigned to the Centralized Sport Entity (discussed in Chapter 6). Until this entity is established, these responsibilities should reside with Sport Canada.

Considering that Vulnerable Sector Checks may not be required for all coaches, officials, referees, volunteers, and employees in all circumstances, the Commission considered an alternative: the development and implementation of a standardized background screening policy. This alternative would offer more flexibility in terms of screening tools and would likely reduce the administrative burden on sport organizations.

Thus, alternatively, at the federal level, the Commission recommends that:

  1. The Government of Canada take a leadership role, and collaborate with Multisport Service Organizations, its provincial and territorial counterparts and Indigenous groups to develop a standardized background screening policy.
  2. The Government of Canada:
    1. mandate that all sport organizations receiving federal funding adopt and implement the standardized screening policy; and
    2. subsidize the cost of implementing the standardized background screening policy for all sport organizations receiving federal funding.
  3. The Government of Canada:
    1. mandate that all National Sport Organizations receiving federal funding modify their membership rules to require of their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations that they adopt and implement the standardized screening policy; and
    2. subsidize the cost of implementing the standardized background screening policy for member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations of federally funded National Sport Organizations.
  4. The Government of Canada, in determining the level of funding allocated to National Sport Organizations, consider the extent to which the standardized background screening policy is adopted and implemented by their member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.

Thus, alternatively, at the provincial/territorial level, the Commission recommends that:

  1. The Government of Canada:
    1. encourage its provincial and territorial counterparts to mandate that all Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations receiving provincial or territorial funding modify their membership rules to require of their member Community Sport Organizations that they adopt and implement the standardized background screening policy; and
    2. provide conditional grants to provinces and territories to allow them to subsidize the costs of implementing the standardized background screening policy for member Community Sport Organizations of provincially and territorially funded Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations.
  2. The Government of Canada encourage its provincial and territorial counterparts to consider, in determining the level of funding allocated to Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations, the extent to which the standardized background screening policy is implemented by their member Community Sport Organizations.
  3. The development and stewardship of a standardized background screening policy be assigned to the Centralized Sport Entity to be established by the Government of Canada (discussed in Chapter 6). Until that entity is in place, this responsibility should rest with Sport Canada. This includes the subsidization of implementation costs for federally funded sport organizations and member Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations of federally funded National Sport Organizations, as well as the provision of grants to provinces and territories to support their own cost-sharing efforts.

Finally, in terms of data collection, the Commission recommends that:

  1. The Government of Canada establish a comprehensive national tool to regularly collect and analyze data on key indicators to measure and assess the health and safety of sport environments in Canada. Sport participation, safe sport complaints and their outcomes must be part of the data collected.

Page details

2025-08-28