Chapter 6: New leadership in Canadian sport: the Centralized Sport Entity

Part I — The Canadian sport system

On this page

• Summary of participant perspectives on the federal government’s leadership in sport
• Call for a Centralized Sport Entity
• Guiding principles for a Centralized Sport Entity
• Sport models in other countries
• Centralized Sport Entity: preliminary findings and recommendations
• Model options for the Centralized Sport Entity
• Model for a Centralized Sport Entity: preliminary considerations

Summary of participant perspectives on the federal government’s leadership in sport

Our previous chapters highlighted the confusing array of jurisdictions, accountabilities, governance and information sharing mechanisms among sport entities and oversight of organizations at all levels.

An overwhelming consensus emerged in our conversations with participants that no one is truly leading sport in Canada. Many shared their concerns of a longstanding lack of direction and vision for sport. Overall, the Canadian sport “system” has evolved over decades by responding to various crises, issues and pressures in an ad hoc manner, rather than with long-term strategic vision and direction. Decisions have been made reactively, in response to “issues of the moment.” This has led to a lack of clarity, cohesion, and strategic depth in Canada's current sport policy framework. These shortcomings have resulted in inconsistent outcomes and unclear benefits for Canadians, despite significant investments.

The lack of a national strategy for sport and leadership, combined with a reactive approach to sport in Canada, has resulted in the proliferation of National Sport Organizations, Multisport Service Organizations, and Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations in an uncoordinated manner. Each of these organizations operates with its own board of directors, chief executive officer or executive director. They each require administrative support, including human resource services, information technology (IT) support, accounting services, translation services, and insurance.

Given the overlapping mandates of sport organizations within the Canadian sport system, the national roles and responsibilities of each sport organization are unclear. These organizations are effectively working in silos. As a result, redundancies, duplication of efforts, misalignment of goals and the inefficient use of resources within the system have been observed.

As outlined in Chapter 5, the core funding to National Sport Organizations has not increased since 2005. This has created an environment in which organizations, often with increasing mandated responsibilities, are competing for support amidst an unchanging pool of funds.

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

As such, it is not surprising that many individuals and organizations expressed to the Commission that the time is right for a review. They believe that there should be a rebalancing of priorities between high-performance and grassroots sport and physical activity, as part of developing a comprehensive new vision for sport in Canada.

Participants also voiced frustrations with the federal government’s funding processes for sport. We frequently heard that Sport Canada often releases funds to sport organizations well into their fiscal year but still requires them to spend these funds before the end of the same period. While this approach to providing supplemental resources may be well intentioned, it can place significant, and sometimes impossible, expectations on already overburdened organizations who must scramble to meet the requirements associated with such funding.

We were advised that ministers are often motivated by short-term political or circumstantial objectives, rather than addressing more strategic longer-term goals. We also understand that delays occur while awaiting ministerial approval for funding. A recurring concern was the changing approaches or visions that often emerge after a change in government or a cabinet shuffle. Over the past 15 years, there have been 10 changes in ministers and portfolios, and sport has not always had a dedicated minister.^{Footnote 1} This instability has resulted in a lack of clear direction and vision, causing delays and confusion as priorities are re-examined or re-established.

This was evident, for example, when an initial announcement was released in 2023 stating that National Sport Organizations would be required to fully comply with the Canadian Governance Code by April 1, 2025.^{Footnote 2} In November 2024, a subsequent announcement was made by a different minister stating that only certain governance requirements, rather than the entire Code, would become mandatory conditions for funding. Given the initial announcement, several National Sport Organizations had already dedicated resources and expended significant effort to ensure complete compliance with that Code.

The delayed release of the Canadian Sport Policy serve as another example of the complicated and prolonged processes in the Canadian sport system. The Commission recognizes that time and effort is required with any collaborative policy involving both levels of government. However, it is also the Commission’s understanding that changes of federal ministers and governments have contributed to this delay.

It is also important to note that the Sport portfolio has remained an entry-level minister position. In some instances, a Secretary of State or Minister of State holds this portfolio, diminishing its importance at the Cabinet table. For over 20 years, sport has been addressed within the Department of Canadian Heritage, a department responsible for promoting Canadian identity and values and celebrating Canada’s history and heritage. Not surprisingly, sport is therefore seen as a vehicle to foster and promote a sentiment of national pride, and high-performance success may become the primary focus, rather than the growth and stewardship of a vibrant national sport system.

Call for a Centralized Sport Entity

The absence of clear leadership and the lack of a single entity responsible for providing strategic vision and leadership for sport and physical activity in Canada was identified as a significant shortcoming. Throughout our conversations with participants, a compelling need became apparent for a centralized entity, independent from government and political cycles, to provide comprehensive oversight of the national sport and physical activity system.

Participants proposed different models or structures for what we will initially refer to as a Centralized Sport Entity. Various foundational principles for such a structure were identified in discussions, submissions and academic articles. These principles reflect concepts of centralization, autonomy and independence, transparency and accountability, and the importance of a structure grounded in federal legislation.

Guiding principles for a Centralized Sport Entity

Given the current lack of leadership and the absence of a comprehensive, cohesive, national strategy for sport and physical activity in Canada, a centralized approach to the development and leadership by and for the sport and physical activity communities in Canada would allow for a dynamic new path forward. The federal government would fund such an entity and retain responsibility for distant oversight.

A centralized entity would allow a thoughtfully creative and transparent approach to policy development. It would lead to better efficiencies, reduce redundancies, and clarify responsibilities by uniting Canada’s sport and physical activity organizations that do similar work. This would create a synergy between sport and physical activity programs.

As sport currently resides within a ministerial department, decisions may be motivated by political objectives and data. The importance of an evidence-based approach to decision making in sport and physical activity is fundamental. This approach would be reinforced through a centralized sport entity with greater autonomy and independence from the government. The principles of open and accountable decision-making processes and financial responsibility are also essential to give credibility to any entity and to ensure it maintains public trust and confidence.

Finally, for stability and continuity, consideration should be given to creating an entity that is grounded in legislation. This would ensure a clear mandate and would assist in preventing changes when a new government is elected, or a new minister is appointed.

Sport models in other countries

Before turning to what a Centralized Sport Entity in the Canadian context may look like, we explore the models adopted in other countries. For this Preliminary Report, we considered the models in place in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Each of these jurisdictions has designed their sport system using different models, with varying structures.

As will be discussed below, Australia brings together the responsibility for high-performance sport and broader participation at the national level under one entity. On the other hand, the United Kingdom separates these responsibilities, with a nationwide approach to high-performance and a regional approach to broad participation. New Zealand’s approach reflects a mix of both of these models.

Australia

Australia is a federal state with six states and two major territories. Powers are divided between the central federal government and regional governments in the states and territories, all of which have their own constitutions, parliaments, governments and laws.^{Footnote 3} Federal powers are defined in the Constitution. All undefined powers, or remedial powers, are an area of state and territory responsibility.

The federal government has exclusive power over defence, foreign policy, currency, copyright and citizenship. The federal government, the states and territories share power over education, environment, health, taxation and overseas trade. Finally, residual powers of primarily state and territory interests include public transport, utilities such as electricity and water supply, consumer affairs, police, prison and ambulance services. There are also over 500 local councils that can make local laws related to, for example, local roads, parking and sewerage for their region or district.^{Footnote 4}

Australia's sport funding mechanisms are a collaborative framework involving national, state, and local governments, along with private sector contributions. This framework is designed to support both elite and community-level sports. The Australian Government's Ministry of Sport is located within the Department of Health's Office for Sport which oversees sport development.^{Footnote 5} The Ministry of Sport supervises the Australian Sports Commission responsible for mass sport participation. The mandate of the Commission is to: “[…] lead, support and provide opportunities for all communities to be involved in sport, while growing elite success and representation, inspiring future generations.”^{Footnote 6}

Australia has two national strategies to achieve its sport mandate. One strategy, Australia’s Sport Participation Strategy – Play Well, is focused on mass sport participation.^{Footnote 7} The other, High Performance 2032+ Sport Strategy, is focused on high-performance sport.^{Footnote 8} Both strategies fall under the umbrella of the Australian Sports Commission. This central entity, funded by the Australian Government, is overseen by an arms-length board of directors. The reach, relevance and vibrancy of the Australian approach can be seen by examining the two recent strategic documents identified above.

In line with its mandate, the Australian Sports Commission works with various stakeholders to create opportunities from grassroots community level to high performance. These stakeholders include sport institutes and academies, sport clubs, schools, recreation centres, national sport organizations, and the Australian Olympic Committee. The Commission works across the local, state, territorial, and national levels of sport.^{Footnote 9}

The Australian Institute of Sport, which is an element of the Australian Sports Commission, performs a variety of functions, including the development of a sport excellence program, conducting research, providing sport medicine and sport science services, and addressing issues relating to facilities.^{Footnote 10}

The Australian Institute of Sport functions as a hub for sport science and research, with a specific focus on high-performance and serving the needs of national and international-level athletes and teams. Additionally, State Institutes of Sport exist within Australian states and territories, fulfilling similar roles but addressing the needs of athletes within their respective state or territorial structures.^{Footnote 11}

The Australian Sports Commission invests in high-performance and national sport participation programs, performance pathways, people development and well-being, and research and innovation. It also manages high-performance operations at various locations and offers support to thousands of athletes and dozens of Australian sports through guidance and collaboration.^{Footnote 12}

The Australian Sports Commission is a Government Commonwealth Corporate Entity. This means that it is a corporate body with a separate legal personality from the Commonwealth of Australia. It was established through legislation and is subject to the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act.^{Footnote 13} The Australian Sports Commission was created by the Australian Sports Commission Act, 1989.^{Footnote 14} This enabling statute prescribes the Commission’s objectives, functions and powers, among other things. This statute also has a section outlining the circumstances in which the Minister may give directions to the Commission.^{Footnote 15}

The Australian Sports Commission is governed by a Board of Commissioners, whose members are appointed by the Minister of Sport. The Board determines the Australian Sports Commission’s overall direction, decides on allocation of resources and on policy for delegated decisions. The Board is accountable to the Minister for Sport.^{Footnote 16} As a Corporate Commonwealth Entity, the Australian Sports Commission is funded by the Australian Government to support and invest in sport at all levels.^{Footnote 17}

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. The constitution is mainly un-codified.^{Footnote 18} Historically, legislative, administrative, and executive power in the United Kingdom resided with the central government in Westminster. However, since the end of the twentieth century, a process of devolution has been transferring certain powers to the regional governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This transfer of power is codified in devolution legislation.^{Footnote 19}

Devolution in the United Kingdom has occurred asymmetrically, meaning that certain regional Parliaments have greater legislative and executive power than others.^{Footnote 20} In general, certain powers are “reserved” to the United Kingdom Parliament, such as defence, foreign affairs, and matters that concern the United Kingdom as a whole.^{Footnote 21}

Matters devolved to regional governments include health and social services, education, economic development, and agriculture.^{Footnote 22} Further certain powers have also been given to local and city administrations, allowing greater control over local administration. These powers also vary by region, with powers split differently between local and regional governments throughout England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. These powers generally include community services, environmental matters, local transport, housing, and social services.^{Footnote 23}

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (United Kingdom Government) is responsible for designing sport policy across the United Kingdom, which includes England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.^{Footnote 24} The Department’s sport policy promotes sport from an early age and encourages sport throughout life.^{Footnote 25}

UK Sport, a government arm’s length body that serves all of the United Kingdom, is responsible for high-performance sport. This entity has no direct involvement in community or school sport.^{Footnote 26} UK Sport is funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and The National Lottery.^{Footnote 27} Its primary mission is to lead and support Olympic and Paralympic sport in the UK, ensuring British athletes achieve sustained world-class success.^{Footnote 28} As such, UK Sport works closely with the British Olympic Association.^{Footnote 29} UK Sport is accountable to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.^{Footnote 30}

In contrast, promoting and implementing the sport policy from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport across the United Kingdom falls to a sport entity within each country. Those entities are Sport England, Sport Northern Ireland, Sport Scotland and Sport Wales. Each of these entities, established in varying ways, is responsible for, among other things, the promotion of mass participation in their respective countries.^{Footnote 31}

New Zealand

New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy. It is established through various statutes and conventions. New Zealand does not have states or provincial governments. New Zealand’s government is divided between the central government, which makes decisions affecting the country, and local governments, which look after the interests and needs of specific communities through regional, city, or district councils.^{Footnote 32}

The central government is responsible for areas such as housing, welfare, education, health, justice, and immigration.^{Footnote 33} The powers of local governments are defined by various legislation. Their powers include providing local services, levying of property taxes, process building and environmental consents, and other regulatory tasks.^{Footnote 34} Local governments are independent of, but subordinate to, the central government.^{Footnote 35}

Sport New Zealand is the Crown entity responsible for promoting, encouraging, and supporting physical recreation and sport in the country.^{Footnote 36} It was established by the Sport and Recreation New Zealand Act. Sport New Zealand also includes High Performance Sport New Zealand, which leads the high-performance sport system, supporting athletes and coaches. It aims to deliver performances on the world stage that inspire the nation and its communities, helping to build national identity and promote New Zealand internationally.^{Footnote 37}

Sport New Zealand reports to the Minister for Sport and Recreation through its board of directors. The Minister appoints the Board Chair and members of the Board of Directors. The Board sets and guides the Sport New Zealand strategic direction. The board is also ultimately responsible for implementing sport strategies that aim to improve physical activity and well-being. Sport New Zealand has 2 main strategic directions: Every Body Active: strategic direction 2020-2032,^{Footnote 38} focused on broad body activity, and High-Performance Sport New Zealand 2025-2028 Strategic Plan, focussed on high-performance.^{Footnote 39}

The national government funds Sport New Zealand to promote play, active recreation and sport, with a focus on system leadership and national well-being.^{Footnote 40} At the same time, New Zealand is comprised of 11 regional councils and 67 territorial authorities.

The territorial authorities are collectively referred to as “local authorities.” They support their communities by providing sport facilities, funding, and promoting participation as the biggest service provider of recreational programs and infrastructure. Local authorities also partner with national, regional and local sports organizations to deliver community sport and recreational facilities. They are recognized as encouraging locally led decision-making and community development.^{Footnote 41}

Centralized Sport Entity: preliminary findings and recommendations

Centralized Sport Entity: preliminary findings

As outlined in this chapter, the “system” in its current form is rife with inefficiencies and redundancy. This is evident in the operations of National Sport Organizations and national Multisport Service Organizations that each require, for example, a board of directors, legal services, human resources, accounting services and information technology (IT) services.

There is also a clear lack of consistent policy direction, which leads to confusion. As previously described in this report, two distinct federal departments, Canadian Heritage and Health Canada, currently play a role in the Canadian sport and physical activity sector, but in different capacities. The Department of Canadian Heritage, through Sport Canada, has jurisdiction related to the encouragement, promotion and development of sport.^{Footnote 42} Meanwhile, Health Canada, through the Public Health Agency of Canada, aims to improve the physical activity levels of those living in Canada through various initiatives.^{Footnote 43} In addition, the number of National Sport Organizations is increasing, alongside a multitude of national Multisport Service Organizations that often have similar mandates.

While establishing a Centralized Sport Entity would require strong governmental leadership, we believe the time is right to bring a renewed focus, energy, expertise, and commitment to sport and physical activity in the country.

As such, the Commission is of the view that a Centralized Sport Entity should be created. In addition, given the interdependence between sport and physical activity, they should reside under the same Government Department. The interdependence of sport and physical activity is illustrated by the fact that both are addressed in one statute: the Physical Activity and Sport Act. In our view, they must be integrated to operate effectively and to ensure a consistent approach from the grassroots to the national level.

Centralized Sport Entity: preliminary recommendations

The Commission therefore recommends that:

23. The Government of Canada integrate the functions of sport and physical activity under the same Department.
24. The Government of Canada create a Centralized Sport Entity to provide strategic leadership, coordination, administration and oversight of sport and physical activity across the Canadian sport system. It would also ensure the effective coordination and collaboration of the range of Canadian sport organizations currently serving Canadians and the sport community.
25. The Centralized Sport Entity develop, deliver and oversee a cohesive national sport and physical activity strategy with clearly defined priorities. This function, currently held by Sport Canada, should be carried out in collaboration with interested groups, including the provinces and territories, Indigenous groups, athletes and sport and physical activity organizations.
26. The Centralized Sport Entity be responsible for:
    1. Developing and implementing a national coaching certification.
    2. Supporting research relevant to the health and well-being of Canadians, and to the success of sport and physical activity and programs under its jurisdiction.

These responsibilities are currently performed by other national Multisport Service Organizations.

27. The Centralized Sport Entity be responsible for functions and responsibilities related to funding for sport and physical activity by the Government of Canada, the governance of sport organizations, safe sport, as well as a national parasport strategy. The specific elements of these responsibilities are described in other chapters of this report.

Model options for the Centralized Sport Entity

A Centralized Sport Entity could take several different forms. Participants to our engagement activities proposed different model options for this new entity, namely: a ministerial department; a ministerial departmental agency; a crown corporation; a not-for-profit organization created by federal legislation; or a not-for-profit third-party delivery organization. We discuss these options in turn below, comparing their varying levels of independence from government and how they would be created.

Ministerial department

Ministerial departments, otherwise referred to as departments, operate under the control and direction of a minister who receives their authority for the management and direction of the department by statute.^{Footnote 44}

In the current model, Sport Canada is a branch led by a Director General within the Department of Canadian Heritage. This branch falls underneath the Sport, Major Events and Commemoration sector, which is led by an Associate Deputy Minister.

Although the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages is responsible for the Department of Canadian Heritage, their authority related to sport has been delegated to the Secretary of State (Sport).^{Footnote 45} With regards to sport and physical activity, these responsibilities were respectively allotted to the Secretary of State (Sport) and the Minister of Health.^{Footnote 46}

Ministerial departmental agency

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

In general, such organizations are created by legislation that set out their mandate, authorities and organizational structure.^{Footnote 47} Some agencies are structured on a corporate model in which decision-making powers are vested in a board or commission. ^{Footnote 48} Examples of departmental agencies include the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

Crown Corporation

Crown corporations are not-for-profit government organizations created by federal legislation, but they operate at arm’s length of the government.^{Footnote 49} Examples of Crown Corporations include the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Telefilm Canada and the Canada Council for the Arts.

The Canada Council for the Arts is Canada’s national arts funder. It offers a broad range of grants to Canadian artists and arts organizations.^{Footnote 50} It is worth noting that the creation of the Canada Council for the Arts was a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences led by the Right Honourable Vincent Massey.^{Footnote 51} A parallel to sport can be drawn from the recommendation resulting from this Commission because, like sport, culture is a matter of shared jurisdiction between the federal and the provincial and territorial legislatures. In creating the Canada Council for the Arts, the federal government ascertained their role in the context of culture and arts. This entity was established to function in parallel to provincial and territorial structures relating to culture and arts.

Most Crown Corporations operate in an industrial, commercial or financial environment. This often requires them to have more flexibility in financial and management matters compared to other government bodies. The legislation that creates a Crown Corporation provides the policy, operational framework, and the responsibilities of the Minister, the board of directors and the chief executive officer.^{Footnote 52}

While this model provides maximum decision-making autonomy from government, Crown Corporations remain accountable to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs. They do so by reporting to the Minister assigned to oversee them. This Minister has authority to approve the corporation’s corporate plan and budgets, and is responsible for recommending potential board members to the Governor in Council.^{Footnote 53}

While these entities operate at arm’s length of government, they are subject to the government’s human resource and administrative policies that apply to departments.^{Footnote 54}

Not-for-profit created by federal legislation

Created by federal legislation, these entities are governed by a Board of Directors, whose members are appointed by Order in Council. They are accountable to Parliament through a Minister, by tabling of a Corporate Plan and Annual Report. They receive funds from the federal government, making them subject to the terms of their contribution agreement. They also receive funds from any contributing signatories.

An example of this model is the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada established by the Physical Activity and Sport Act^{Footnote 55}.

Not-for-profit third-party delivery organization

Another model that is used in some cases is a third-party delivery arrangement model. This approach is usually chosen when specialized knowledge specific to the programs is required.

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

This model provides more flexibility to the entity in terms of determining its mandate. It also allows for collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, as they could be parties to the contribution agreement. In such cases, the corporation would be accountable to all interested parties to the contribution agreement.

Examples of this model include the National Sport Organizations funded through the Sport Canada’s Sport Support Program, as well as other entities like the Canada Media Fund.

Model for a Centralized Sport Entity: preliminary considerations

On one end of the spectrum of options, we find the current model where sport sits within the Ministerial Department. At the opposite end is the Not-for-Profit Third-Party Delivery Organization, which receives government funding to achieve outcomes outlined in a contribution agreement.

It is evident that the current model has proven ineffective. We also note that the strict not-for-profit model, which is not rooted in legislation, raises concerns about consistent and stable funding. The situation in which many National Sport Organizations find themselves in serves as an example of this instability.

In considering these options, the Commission is of the view that it is crucial to find the right balance between ensuring independence for decision-making on sport-specific issues, while also accounting for government policy direction and oversight.

As a result, the Commission is of the view that consideration should be given to a Centralized Sport Entity in the form of either a Crown Corporation or a Not-for-Profit created by federal legislation. This federal legislation could provide for the responsibilities of the Centralized Sport Entity.

In addition, this legislation must also clearly define the circumstances in which the Minister responsible for the entity can intervene. As seen in other jurisdictions, ministerial interventions may be limited to exceptional circumstances where the entity demonstrated it was unable to resolve an issue and that intervention by the assigned Minister is required in the public's interest. This mechanism further provides for a balance between independence from government and decision-making powers.

The Commission looks forward to discussing these preliminary recommendations to find a unique, made in Canada solution that will bring a united vision and central leadership to physical activity and sport across the country.