Thoughts about the Canadian Sport Policy Discussion Paper (Richard Way)

I was recently invited to provide comments on a discussion paper with proposals for a new Canadian Sport Policy (CSP). As someone immersed in the values and vision of CS4L, I am very concerned about what I have read.

With confusing and often vague language, the discussion paper fails, in my view, to clearly articulate a unifying, encompassing vision for quality sport in Canada.  It also fails to leverage key initiatives occurring presently in Canadian sport, including but not exclusive to CS4L. 

From the perspective of CS4L, the new CSP needs to clearly articulate how we can build a sport system based on:

• MORE participation in sport at all development stages,
• BETTER sport being delivered at all development stages and the
• STRATEGIC use of sport to better society.

While these elements are present in the discussion paper, they are buried in the details and do not emerge in the goals as they should.

Important input from the recent CSP consultations are not obvious in the Discussion Paper.  These include:

• Evolving the governance of sport, and
• Use of technology (from basic administration to advanced sport specific tools)

As well, some concepts such as inclusion and innovation are superficially stated, yet the entire idea of development through sport is specifically to include these in program outcomes so that they happen intentionally. 

As well, physical literacy and physical activity are largely ignored. 

While the purpose of the participation map appears to be “better definitions” to address concerns about the broad concepts of Excellence and Participation in the original CSP, it is more likely to create confusion and quibbling over artificial boundaries.

The types of activity described in the discussion paper are redundant to the three key outcomes of Canadian Sport for Life (which already have the quality concept built-in).

• ‘Initiation to Sport’ is redundant to Physical Literacy
• 'Competitive Sport’ is redundant to the CS4L Excellence stream
• ‘Recreational Sport’ is partially redundant to the CS4L’s broader Lifelong Participation in Sport and Physical Activity (Competitive for Life and Fit for Life)

Certainly, if Sport Initiation is done “properly” then physical literacy would be an outcome.  However, simply having sport initiation programs will not necessarily produce those ends.  Why not say physical literacy? That is the outcome being sought. 

We need to be able to describe the specific, desired state that we are working towards, instead of a variation on a theme that we already have. As physical literacy has made its way to the community in recent years, we have witnessed its power in bringing health and education to embrace the power of sport and physical activity. Narrowing the CSP language to ‘Initiation to Sport’ will immediately alienate partnerships developing with health and education.

The participation map does not include or recognize physical activity, which only serves to promote the existing divide between municipal recreation and sport.  This does not advance community connections: it represents a regression in the work of CS4L, CPRA and a number of communities across Canada to date.

Certainly, expanding the view of sport outcomes to include Sport for sport and sport for society will be an advance in the new CSP. These need to be in the context of having clear policy addressing four sectors;

• sport, (or, “traditional sport system”)
• recreation,
• health and
• education.

Each of these sectors should be able to envision their work in any ‘map’ which underpins a new CSP, yet health and education are not readily apparent.

In summary, the words bolded above form the framework upon which to build the new CSP.  We need to come together in constructive conversation about how to ensure that the renewed CSP is an inspirational and rallying document. 

I am concerned the framework outlined in the discussion paper is sufficiently problematic that it will lead to either increased division, or - at best - to people ignoring the new CSP because it is confusing and does not describe either current realities or a compelling future state. I encourage you to stay informed, read the information on the Renewal on the SIRC website, and make your opinion known!

Richard Way
Richard Way is the Project Leader of the Canadian Sport for Life movement and a member of the Leadership Team. He has extensive leadership experience in the Canadian sport community including working with countless organizations on strategic planning and management functions, the Director of Sport for Vancouver’s successful 2010 Bid Corporation and twelve years with the Government of BC primarily in coaching education and training. A two-sport athlete, Richard represented Canada as a Luge athlete and coach as well as being an All-Canada-West soccer player with the University of Calgary. He now coaches his children at the community sport level.