The cracks in Canada’s sports system aren’t just showing anymore. They’ve blown wide open. A commission led by former Chief Justice Lise Maisonneuve didn’t mince words when it described what it found: widespread abuse, underfunding, and a fragmented structure that barely qualifies as a system at all.
Nearly 100 recommendations now sit on the federal government’s desk. The most ambitious? Create a Crown corporation to run sport in Canada from top to bottom. It’s a dramatic proposal born from what the commission uncovered during months of testimony and examination.
Athletes from multiple disciplines told stories that made headlines and turned stomachs. They testified before a House of Commons committee about mental and physical abuse that scarred their careers and their lives. The common thread? A system that prioritized medals over people and let predators operate with impunity.
Maisonneuve’s commission began its work in 2024 after mounting pressure for a public inquiry. Many advocates wanted the full power of an inquiry to compel testimony and force organizations to hand over documents. The Liberal government chose a commission instead, arguing that a public inquiry would subject traumatized athletes to aggressive cross-examination.
That decision drew criticism at the time. But the commission’s findings suggest the approach still exposed deeply troubling patterns across Canadian sport.
The report doesn’t pull punches when describing what investigators found. Governance failures. Duplication of effort among countless organizations. A lack of integration in policies and programs. And an obsession with high-performance outcomes that crushed athlete safety and dignity under the weight of podium expectations.
“Indeed, at times, we wondered whether this can even be described as a ‘sport system’ given the pervasive problems that exist,” Maisonneuve wrote. That’s a remarkable statement from someone tasked with fixing the very thing she questions exists.
One recurring theme emerged from testimony. A small group of decision-makers and senior leaders have controlled the direction and dollars in Canadian sport for years. Some benefited directly from keeping things exactly as they were. The commission heard concerns that if these same people remain involved, real change won’t happen.
That’s where the Crown corporation proposal comes in. The model looks to Australia and New Zealand, where similar agencies operate with government support but at arm’s length from political interference. The structure matters because sport funding has always been vulnerable to political winds and ministerial priorities.
Under the commission’s vision, this new entity would oversee federal funding for sport and physical activity. It would enforce compliance with safe sport requirements and governance standards. And it would develop a national strategy that balances elite performance with broad participation.
“Our approach to sport must encompass both the pursuit of excellence in high-performance sport and broad sport participation,” the report states. Decisions should be evidence-based and timely, not shaped by political pressure or lobby efforts from entrenched interests.
The accountability piece matters here. Right now, responsibility is scattered across Sport Canada, the Canadian Olympic Committee, national sport organizations, and provincial bodies. When something goes wrong, everyone points fingers. Nobody takes ownership.
A single leadership entity would change that dynamic. It would create a clear line of accountability from community clubs to Olympic training centers.
The commission’s preliminary report last year described a “broken” system. The final version doubles down on that assessment and provides a roadmap for rebuilding. Whether the federal government has the political will to follow through remains an open question.
Creating a Crown corporation requires legislation. That means parliamentary debate, committee hearings, and the usual political theater that can water down ambitious proposals. And there’s the money question. The commission calls for immediately increasing funding to the sport system, but doesn’t specify exact figures.
That level of detail will matter when MPs start asking how much this overhaul will cost taxpayers. Sport funding in Canada has always been modest compared to countries we compete against. Australia invests heavily in its sport system through its Sports Commission. So does New Zealand through Sport New Zealand.
If Canada wants similar results, it will need similar investment. But selling that to a public worried about healthcare wait times and housing costs won’t be easy.
The human cost of inaction is harder to quantify but no less real. Athletes who testified before Parliament described careers derailed and lives damaged by coaches and administrators who faced no consequences. Some spoke of eating disorders driven by weight requirements. Others detailed verbal abuse that crossed into psychological torture.
These weren’t isolated incidents at rogue clubs. The patterns appeared across sports, provinces, and levels of competition. The system itself enabled the behavior by prioritizing results over welfare and protecting institutions instead of athletes.
Maisonneuve’s commission argues that fundamental restructuring is the only path forward. Tweaking policies or adding oversight committees won’t address the root problems. The entire architecture needs rethinking.
The Crown corporation model offers distance from political meddling while maintaining public accountability. It allows for long-term strategic planning that doesn’t get upended every time a new minister takes over the Sport portfolio. And it creates space for evidence-based decision-making instead of funding choices driven by lobbying or media attention.
Whether this vision becomes reality depends on choices the federal government will make in the coming months. The commission has delivered its blueprint. The testimonies are on record. The problems are undeniable.
What happens next will show whether Canada’s political leadership values athlete safety and sporting excellence enough to embrace disruptive change. Or whether the comfortable status quo proves too tempting to abandon, even with nearly 100 calls to action demanding something better.
