Safe sport for whom?: are national sport organisations addressing the truth and reconciliation commission’s calls to action for sport through safe sport policies?

ABSTRACT

We investigated if National Sport Organisation’s (NSO) staff members and safe sport policymakers see safe sport policies as addressing anti-Indigenous racism and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action (CTA) for sport through safe sport policies. To do this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 participants from eight NSOs and examined these NSOs’ safe sport policies, including equity, diversity, and inclusion policies. The participants and the documents produced three main discourses: 1) Anti-Indigenous racism policies are not required because safe sport policies are inclusive of everyone, including Indigenous peoples; 2) policies alone are insufficient: Safe sport education and resources are needed to address anti-Indigenous racism; 3) the TRC’s CTA are not being treated as a priority by Sport Canada but NSOs want to act on the CTA in consultation with Indigenous organisations. Taken together, these discourses reflect that NSOs are exercising power by leaving anti-Indigenous racism out of safe sport policies and by deciding if, when, and how the TRC’s CTAs such as Call 90 are taken up.

KEYWORDS:

• Truth and reconciliation
• calls to action
• Indigenous
• Canada
• sport policy

Introduction

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) was officially established in 2008 as a component of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, which resulted from a class-action lawsuit brought forward by former students of the Indian residential school system (Marshall 2013). The TRC was mandated to compile and present the stories of residential school survivors, explore and explain the ongoing legacy of the residential school system, and guide a process of healing within Indigenous communities and between settlers and Indigenous peoples¹ in Canada (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015a). The TRC’s Final Report highlighted 94 Calls to Action (CTA) that the TRC’s Commissioners identified as being essential for reconciliation between settlers and Indigenous peoples in Canada (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015b). Five of these Calls addressed sport. In December 2015, the federal government committed to addressing all the CTA (Government of Canada 2015). To date, however, national sport organisations (NSOs) have not been mandated by Sport Canada, the federal government sporting body that provides sport leadership and support at the national level (Canadian Heritage 2020), to implement these CTA. This stands in sharp contrast to the ways in which NSOs have been mandated by the federal government to develop and implement safe sport policies.

In the mainstream Canadian context, safe sport can be broadly understood as an initiative that is used to create an environment free from all forms of maltreatment, harassment, and discrimination in sport (Coaching Association of Canada 2020a). This definition has expanded in recent years to refer to a holistic, human rights-based approach to creating a safe, welcoming, and inclusive sport environment (Kerr 2021). In Canada, Indigenous peoples have experienced and continue to experience discrimination deeply rooted in a history of colonisation, cultural assimilation through the residential school system, and government policies, which has resulted in historical trauma and loss of cultural cohesion (Brascoupé and Waters 2009). As such, safe sport is of particular importance for Indigenous peoples. Since 2019, there have been successive federal government actions in Canada to address maltreatment in sport, including the strengthening of safe sport policies, programmes, and training to address issues of maltreatment, discrimination, and harassment in sport, which have since been mandated by the federal government (Canadian Heritage 2019). All NSO members under the authority of Sport Canada are required to take safe sport training whether it be the CAC’s safe sport training or their own training programmes (Coaching Association of Canada 2020b). Although safe sport and the TRC’s CTA have been studied separately, there has been no research to date that has discussed how these two initiatives could inform each other or on how Call 90’s emphasis on anti-racism awareness and training can be addressed through safe sport policies and programming.

Using Bacchi’s (2012) ‘What’s the problem represented to be’ approach and a critical settler colonial studies lens, we investigated if NSO staff members and safe sport policymakers see safe sport policies as being inclusive of Indigenous peoples and addressing anti-Indigenous racism and the TRC’s CTA for sport through safe sport policies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 participants who were NSO staff and/or safe sport policymakers from eight NSOs, and we also examined these NSOs’ safe sport policies, including equity, diversity, and inclusion policies. The participants and the documents produced three discourses: 1) Anti-Indigenous racism policies are not required because safe sport policies are inclusive of everyone, including Indigenous peoples; 2) policies alone are insufficient: Safe sport education and resources are needed to address anti-Indigenous racism; 3) TRC’s CTA are not being treated as a priority by Sport Canada but NSOs want to act in consultation with Indigenous organisations. Taken together, these discourses reflect that NSOs are exercising power by excluding anti-Indigenous racism from safe sport policies and thereby not addressing the TRC’s CTA 90. As a result, we demonstrate that NSOs perpetuate settler colonialism and that there are clear tensions in the notion that safe sport is for everyone.

Throughout the research process we were aware of our social positions as non-Indigenous settler researchers, with the first author being of Irish and Scottish descent, the second author being of English and Welsh descent, and the third author being of Scottish, English, and Irish descent. The authors are not affiliated in any way with the participating NSOs or the research participants. We continuously reflected on how our social positions influenced this research process, and we were also cognisant of how this influenced the way we took up the discourses the participants and the documents produced. As settlers, we believed it was our role to conduct this research investigating and critiquing how sport institutions such as NSOs in Canada are or are not addressing the TRC’s Calls to Action and anti-Indigenous racism in Canada and how they continue to exercise power. Through this work, we hope to continue to contribute to the reconciliation process.

Literature review

In the following section, we define and describe the role of sport within reconciliation as well the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA and their emphasis on anti-racism awareness and training. We then discuss the inception and evolution of safe sport in Canada. Finally, we discuss safe sport in the scholarly literature and its role in addressing anti-Indigenous racism in sport organisations at the NSO, Provincial Sport Organisations (PSO), and Territorial Sport Organisations (TSO) levels.

Sport for reconciliation (SFR) in Canada

The establishment of the Indian residential school system, a form of cultural genocide in which Indigenous children were forcibly removed from the homes and communities, enabled Euro-Canadian style sport and games to become a central component of the assimilation process (Forsyth and Wamsley 2006). The goal of this style of sport was to completely erase Indigenous culture, including traditional Indigenous physical practices (Forsyth and Wamsley 2006, Forsyth 2007). Despite the damage that the residential school system has wrought on Indigenous peoples, their families, and communities, and the use of sport in this process, several scholars have noted the power of sport and land-based learning in enhancing Indigenous resurgence, regeneration, and reconciliation (Arellano and Downey 2018, McGuire-Adams and Giles 2018, Phillips et al. 2019, Charles 2020, Johanis-Bell et al. 2023).

Although sport can be a tool for reconciliation and cultural resurgence, Indigenous peoples continue to face racism within sport. Indigenous youth in sport have experienced overt forms of racism, alienation, slurs, and other forms of institutional racism and discrimination (Robidoux 2006, Mason et al. 2019). Indigenous youth in Canada experience racial microaggressions and acts of racism such as encountering expectations of primitiveness such as subjecting Indigenous students to mockery of their identities and cultural appropriation, enduring unconstrained voyeurism through poking and prodding about Indigenous identity, experiencing curricular misrepresentation or elimination, and living with everyday cultural and social isolation among others (Clark et al. 2014). The historical discrimination of Indigenous peoples in sport and a lack of culturally relevant policy and programming continues to affect their participation (Paraschak 2013). Unfortunately, very little has been done to address anti-Indigenous racism and discrimination in sport in Canada, and there has been no investigation of how safe sport could be used as an avenue to address it.

TRC and CTA

In the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015a) Final Report, of the 94 CTA, five related to sport. Call #90 is of particular relevance to our research. It called for all levels of government to work in collaboration,

to ensure that national sport policies, programs, and initiatives are inclusive of Aboriginal peoples, including, but not limited to, establishing: 1) In collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, stable funding for, and access to, community sport programs that reflect diverse cultures and traditional sporting activities of Aboriginal peoples, 2) An elite athlete development program for Aboriginal athletes, 3) Programs for coaches, trainers, and sport officials that are culturally relevant for Aboriginal peoples, and 4) Anti-racism awareness and training programs. (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015b, p. 10)

There has been some research that has focused on the TRC’s sport-related CTA (Paraschak 2019, Rajwani et al. 2021); however, there has been little research to date on TRC’s Call #90 with its emphasis on anti-racism awareness and training (Szto et al. 2020). Research to date on how/if the mechanism of safe sport could be used as a tool to address the inequities and abuse that Indigenous athletes continue to face in sport has escaped scholarly attention.

Discourses surrounding the TRC and reconciliation in Canada have been critiqued by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars. Some have argued the concept of reconciliation aims to restore a positive relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples; nevertheless, others have argued that a position relationship never existed – that the relationship has been fraught with land dispossession, assimilation, and cultural genocide (Tuck and Yang 2012, Jung 2018, Daigle 2019). Further, language and discourses surrounding reconciliation, including that within the TRC, position colonialism in the past and attempt to paint a relationship between settler colonial state and Indigenous peoples that is ‘amicable, cooperative, and mutually beneficial’ (Daigle 2019, p. 707). By highlighting events of the past, discourses of reconciliatory responsibility have positioned non-Indigenous peoples and settler organisations as being aware of past historical traumas and as being supportive of addressing responsibility and reconciliation (Gebhard 2017, Brooks-Cleator and Giles 2020). Jung (2018) argued that by distinguishing between past and present, reconciliation masks the subtle forms of racism and cultural bias without fully addressing power relations that continue to exist between Indigenous peoples and settlers in Canada. Anti-Indigenous racism continues to exist, which warrants an investigation into how or if anti-Indigenous racism is addressed through safe sport policies and procedures.

Safe sport in Canada

Several high-profile athlete abuse cases have incited safe sport initiatives to address maltreatment in sport. In Canada, several NSOs including Hockey Canada, Bobsleigh Canada, Artistic Swimming Canada, and Gymnastics Canada are among numerous NSOs that are being investigated because of allegations of various forms of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse (Barnes 2022). Minister of Sport Pascale St. Onge has called abuse in sport a ‘crisis’ in Canada and has committed to addressing athletes’ concerns (Barnes 2022, para. 2).

To date, there have been several government initiatives to address maltreatment in sport. In 1996, all NSOs were mandated by Sport Canada to create a publicly accessible harassment policy, appoint third-party harassment officers to deal with complaints, and provide annual reports to Sport Canada on their actions (Kerr et al. 2020). Unfortunately, Donnelly et al. (2016) found that those requirements were not met, and Sport Canada did not ensure NSOs’ compliance. In June of 2018, then Minister of Sport and Science Kirsty Duncan announced the withholding of funding if NSOs did not create an environment free of maltreatment, disclose complaints and disciplinary actions, employ third-party officers, and implement safe sport training by 1 April 2020 (Canadian Heritage 2019). In February 2019, all levels of government signed the ‘Red Deer Declaration for the Prevention of Harassment, Abuse and Discrimination in Sport’ to eliminate abuse and discrimination in sport (Canadian Heritage 2019). In May 2019, the ‘Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS)’ [(Coaching Association of Canada 2020b)] was created by NSOs, multisport service organisations (MSOs), and Canadian Olympic and Paralympic Sport Institute (COPSI) Network members at the national safe sport summit (Sport Information Resource Centre n.d.).

In April 2020, the CAC was tasked with creating training to educate the sport population on abuse, discrimination, and harassment for all Sport Canada funded organisations (Coaching Association of Canada 2020a). The CAC created its Safe Sport training to provide lessons on the principle of the UCCMS and to highlight each participant’s role and responsibility in ensuring a safe sporting environment (Coaching Association of Canada 2020a). Information on the different types of maltreatment, how they can continue to occur, and how to recognise the signs and symptoms are included, along with education on how to report maltreatment and how to create a safe sport culture (Coaching Association of Canada 2020a). To create a better mechanism for reporting maltreatment, it was announced in July 2021 that the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre would implement the new independent, safe sport mechanism through which complaints and disciplinary actions would be handled (Canadian Heritage 2021).

There is a large body of literature on safe sport education and even more literature on maltreatment and its different forms. As defined in the CAC’s Safe Sport Training (2020c), the word ‘maltreatment’ refers to ‘deliberate acts that result in harm or the potential for physical or psychological harm’ (slide 21). Maltreatment includes all types of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse, neglect, bullying, harassment, and discrimination (Kerr et al. 2020). In particular and pertinent to this research, discrimination is defined as ‘an outlook, action or treatment based on prejudice … . Discrimination is a deliberate act of maltreatment. Individuals who identify with traditionally marginalised groups may be more vulnerable to misuse of power’ (Coaching Association of Canada 2020c, slide 28). Many authors have noted that discrimination as a form of maltreatment is a prevalent issue in sport and that equity-owed groups are more susceptible to maltreatment (Willson et al. 2021, Gurgis et al. 2022).

Safe sport is mainly defined as an initiative to prevent harassment and abuse, including the promotion of physical and psychological well-being (Kerr et al. 2020); however, there has been a growing body of literature that has emphasised the need for cultural safety (Papps and Ramsden 1996) in sport and physical activity settings (Giles and Darroch 2014, Brooks-Cleator and Giles 2016). Cultural safety was originally conceptualised as acknowledging power relations between healthcare providers and recipients of care who have different racial, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds (Papps and Ramsden 1996, Brascoupé and Waters 2009), but it has been expanded beyond healthcare settings. Understandings of safe sport in the mainstream context have mostly focused on prevention of maltreatment; however, recent literature has emphasised the need for safe sport training focused on addressing the social and cultural needs of racialised as well as other equity-owed athletes (Gurgis and Kerr 2021, Gurgis et al. 2022).

Recent literature on safe sport has focused on understanding sport administrators’ perspectives of safe sport. Gurgis and Kerr (2021) found that sport administrators emphasised that safe sport policies without enforcement strategies are ineffective. Sport administrators emphasised the need for a cultural shift in safe sport to better address historical discrimination and systemic barriers in sport, especially given the oppressive culture towards individuals who identify as members of equity-owed groups such as racialised athletes, women, and LGBTQ athletes as well as others (Gurgis and Kerr 2021). To date, there has been little research on how equity-owed athletes may or may not experience safe sport despite that they are more susceptible to maltreatment including Indigenous athletes, coaches, and officials (Gurgis et al. 2022). There has also been little research on how sport administrators could be addressing different forms of racism, homophobia, ableism, and other forms of discrimination through safe sport policies and initiatives (Gurgis et al. 2022). As such, research that focuses on sport administrators’ understanding of intersections of safe sport, anti-Indigenous racism, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) sport-related CTA is both timely and necessary.

Methodology

We used Bacchi’s (2012) ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be’ approach to analyse and identify the perspectives of 10 NSO staff and safe sport policymakers from eight Canadian NSOs concerning their safe sport policies and procedures, anti-Indigenous racism, and the TRC’s CTA. We also used this methodology to analyse the safe sport policies of the eight NSOs who agreed to participate in the study. The premise of the WPR approach is that policies will reveal underlying problem representations and what is in need of change (Bacchi 2012). This approach has traditionally been used to critically analyse public policies; however, it can also be used to analyse how policies, such as those related to safe sport and anti-Indigenous racism, are represented in interviews with stakeholders (Bacchi 2012). Bonham and Bacchi (2017) contended that interviews act as, ‘sites that interact with many other sites within a discursive practice, participate in the continual formation of “objects”, “subjects”, concepts and strategies’ (p. 691).

Settler colonialism can be understood as an ongoing system of power that continues to operate and emphasises that settlers seek to eliminate Indigenous peoples, land, and culture, and resources while replacing it with a settler colonial society (Wolfe 2006). Using settler colonialism as a guiding lens to engage and apply Bacchi’s (2012) WPR approach enabled an examination of if/how settler structures continue to attempt to eliminate and discriminate against Indigenous peoples (Rowe and Tuck 2017). In recent literature, sport has been studied as an institution in which settler structures continue to marginalise and exclude Indigenous peoples (Phillips et al. 2019, Rajwani et al. 2021). Ultimately, using a critical settler colonial framework allows for an analysis of the power relations between settlers and Indigenous peoples and how sport structures continue to reflect the erasure of Indigenous culture, rights, and resources (Rowe and Tuck 2017).

We used Bacchi’s (2012) six guiding questions with an additional seventh question to guide our WPR analysis. The first question, ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’ (Bacchi 2012), is used to identify the underlying problem representations. We used this question to identify the problem representations and to understand what NSO staff thought about safe sport, and whether their definitions of safe sport included addressing anti-Indigenous racism, or if it only included physical, mental, and sexual maltreatment. Through our archival research, we also used this guiding question to understand what the safe sport policies proposed to change and whether that included addressing anti-Indigenous racism.

Bacchi’s (2009) second question, ‘What assumptions underlie this representation of the problem?’, is used to explore the assumptions that exist in the problem representations; in other words, the background knowledge that is taken for granted within problem representations. We used this question to identify the underlying assumptions of problem representations of the safe sport policies. We asked specific questions of interviewees such as, ‘What does safe sport mean to you?’ and ‘Do you think the policies that have been put in place by your organisation do enough to ensure a safe environment, especially in addressing anti-Indigenous racism?’ to understand the perspectives of NSO staff of what safe sport encompasses and the taken-for-granted truths that have enabled that definition of safe sport.

The third question, ‘How has this representation of the problem came about?’ (Bacchi 2012), is used primarily to understand the historical development of the problem representations and the underlying power dynamics involved in the development of policies and, in the case of this research, the use of those policies in the traumas of colonialism. The question is used to not only understand the origins of problem representations but also the current practices and institutions, the way in which problems are understood, and their evolution over time (Bacchi 2009). By asking NSO staff about the history of safe sport policies and the processes and considerations that were made in creating them, as well as the underlying power dynamics between settler sport organisations (NSOs) and Indigenous peoples, we were able to analyse how the problem representations of safe sport and anti-Indigenous racism have come about. This allowed us to compare and contrast the differences between how safe sport has been historically constructed, if it included anti-Indigenous racism, and how their organisations have contributed to addressing anti-Indigenous racism and the TRC’s CTA.

Bacchi’s (2012) fourth question in the WPR framework, ‘What is left unproblematic and where are the silences?’, is used to identify what is not being problematised and what problems are being ignored by policymakers. Bacchi (2009) emphasised that with this question it is essential to ask, ‘What fails to be problematised?’ (p. 12). During the interviews, we asked specific questions so to identify what was not being problematised: ‘Did the TRC play any role in the formulation of the safe sport policies?’ and ‘Has your NSO created specific policies to address anti-Indigenous racism?’ among others. Asking these questions allowed us to understand NSO staff members’ and policymakers’ perspectives of their safe sport policies, how they constructed them, and if anti-Indigenous racism was being left unproblematised by NSOs.

We used Bacchi’s (2012) fifth question, ‘What effects are produced by this representation of the problem?’, to understand how policymakers and NSO staff members’ problematisations may be influenced by their own lived experiences. We paid particular attention to subjectification (Bacchi and Goodwin 2016). There are three types of effects that are explored within this question: discursive effects, subjectification effects, and lived effects (Bacchi 2009). Informed by Bacchi and Goodwin (2016), we thus asked the following questions: ‘What is safe sport?’ ‘Who may be harmed by this policy approach?’, and ‘Who may benefit from this representation of the problem?’ These questions allowed us to identify and critically analyse policies as ‘sites of enunciation’ by asking who are the agents of knowledge, who they speak for, where are the silences in policy formulation, and ultimately who is being empowered and benefiting from the problem representation and who is not (Slater and Bell 2002, p. 339). This helped us understand how safe sport is constructed (i.e. as a method of addressing physical, sexual, and emotional maltreatment and/or as a method of also addressing anti-Indigenous racism), how this construction may harm others (i.e. Indigenous peoples), and how this construction of safe sport benefits certain groups (i.e. settler sport organisations).

We used the sixth question, ‘How has this representation of the “problem” been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted, and replaced?’ (Bacchi 2012), to understand how the problem representations have been produced and disseminated, and how can these dominant discourses be challenged. To answer this question, we attended to the problem representations of safe sport policies and how certain discourses of safe sport, anti-Indigenous racism, and the TRC’s CTA are dominant and, ultimately, how these discourses can be challenged, disrupted, and replaced.

The essence of Bacchi’s (2012) seventh question contends that it is crucial for researchers to question their own positionalities on their interpretations of a WPR analysis. With this in mind and as settler authors, we continuously interrogated the ways in which our social positions influenced the ways in which we understood safe sport policies, the TRC’s CTA (2015b), and anti-Indigenous racism. This involved engaging with our social positions and locations, as well as using reflexivity throughout our research, which is imperative to the WPR approach (Bacchi 2012). By acting as accomplices (Whitinui 2021), we continuously reflected on our own problematisations and took it upon ourselves to engage in readings and educational materials as well as engaged in our own reflections of reconciliation.

Methods

Inclusion criteria and participant recruitment

Our inclusion criterion for NSO selection was any NSO that had staff members who had knowledge of safe sport policies or who are safe sport policymakers. We required participants to understand English and to be an original safe sport policymaker or have knowledge of safe sport policies. As institutions that are funded by a settler colonial government, NSOs are in unique positions to enable us to investigate how settler sport organisations are addressing anti-Indigenous racism and the TRC’s CTA.

For summer and winter NSOs, we used purposive sampling (DeCarlo 2018). Initially, we selected five Summer and five Winter NSOs that were all information rich cases due to them having either a large number of Indigenous participants or having initiatives that were specific to Indigenous athlete development or a related initiative. We searched through the staff directory on the summer and winter NSO websites and attempted to contact each safe sport representative. If that person was unavailable or the NSO did not indicate who their safe sport representative was, we contacted the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or Executive Director (ED) and asked if they wished to participate or if they could direct us towards the person that was the most appropriate participant (i.e. their safe sport representative). Of the five initial summer NSOs, three agreed to participate in the study. We used snowball sampling to recruit a further two representatives from two different NSOs. Due to time constraints and lack of responses, we had to revise our initial conditions to include any summer NSO representative who agreed to participate. We then used Sport Canada’s list of federally funded sport organisations and were able to recruit one additional summer NSO. We contacted a total of 28 different participants from 24 summer NSOs. Six summer NSOs agreed to participate, with a total of seven participants from these organisations agreeing to be interviewed. For winter NSOs, we attempted to recruit the initial five information rich cases. Of the initial five winter NSOs, two of the NSOs responded and agreed to participate, with a total of three participants. We continued to try to recruit more but received either refusals or no responses due primarily to the commencement of the Beijing Winter Olympics, which coincided with our recruitment period. We contacted a total of 12 different representatives from Winter NSOs but were unable to recruit additional winter NSOs.

Semi-structured interviews

We used semi-structured interviews to gain participants’ perspectives. This is compatible with Bacchi’s (2012) WPR approach and helped us to answer Bacchi’s (2012) guiding questions, specifically questions two, four, and five. For two of the NSOs, we interviewed two individuals because the individuals we interviewed suggested we interview another person in their organisation who was able to provide additional knowledge on their safe sport policies. Of the 10 participants, three had created the NSO’s original safe sport policies. The remaining participants were currently in the role of safe sport policymaker but were not in that role when the safe sport policies were created, or they had knowledge of the safe sport policies in their NSO (see Table 1). All interviews were conducted over Zoom (n = 10) and lasted 30–65 minutes. We transcribed each interview verbatim and sent the transcripts to the participants. Four of the participants returned the transcripts with additional information and edits. We assigned pseudonyms to all participants.

Table 1. Participant and safe sport policy information (anonymised).

Name	Gender	Years at NSO	NSO	Type of NSO (Summer or Winter Sport)	EDI included in Safe Sport Policies (Y/N)	Where are EDI policies located on website?	Mention of Anti-Indigenous racism in Safe Sport Policies (Y/N)
Taylor	Woman	6 years	1	Summer	Y	Safe sport webpage	N
Madeline	Woman	4 years	2	Winter	Y	Safe sport webpage	N
Thomas	Man	5 years	3	Winter	Y	Safe sport webpage	N
Allison	Woman	Less than 1 year	3	Winter	Y	Safe sport webpage	N
Connor	Man	1 year	4	Summer	Y	Safe sport webpage	N
Ben	Man	7 years	4	Summer	Y	Safe sport webpage	N
Katherine	Woman	1 year	5	Summer	N	General Policies	N
Jane	Woman	2 years	6	Summer	N	General Policies	N
Daniel	Man	9 years	7	Summer	Y	Safe sport webpage	N
Peter	Man	30 years	8	Summer	N	N/A	N

Archival research

We used archival research to locate and analyse the safe sport policies of the eight participating NSOs. This helped to answer Bacchi’s (2012) question three: ‘How has this representation of the problem come about?’ To identify the safe sport policies, we searched through the safe sport policies, resources, and general policies sections of each NSO’s website. We read each policy under the umbrella of ‘safe sport’. We also examined abuse, code of conduct, and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) policies, and we sought to investigate if anti-Indigenous racism was included within those policies or if it was being treated as a separate issue (if at all). Once we identified the safe sport policies, we analysed each policy using Bacchi’s (2012) seven guiding steps. To ensure anonymity of the NSOs, we were limited to providing summaries of information from the archival documents rather than quotations, as quotations could have led to the identification through online searches of the participating NSOs. We conducted the archival research and document search intermittently from December 2021-September 2022.

Data analysis

Consistent with Bacchi’s (2012) WPR approach, we used Willig’s (2008) six stage approach to critical discourse analysis (CDA) to analyse the discursive constructions of safe sport policies and the TRC’s CTA. CDA is compatible with the WPR approach because the problem representations reveal certain policy discourses as well as how dominant discourses can be challenged (Lucas and O’Connor 2021).

For the first stage of Willig’s (2008) approach, we read and analysed the transcripts from the semi-structured interviews as well as the archives and identified any discursive constructions. In the second stage, we looked for differences between constructions of safe sport and anti-Indigenous racism in Canada and located them within the broader discourses of reconciliation in Canada. In the third stage, ‘action orientation’ (Willig 2008), we examined the social contexts in which these discourses were being produced (i.e. TRC’s CTA and Canada being a settler colonial state). In the fourth stage, we focused on subject positions of each of the participants and how they influenced how they took up discourses concerning safe sport and anti-Indigenous racism. In the fifth stage, we examined the relationships between discourses of safe sport and anti-Indigenous racism and the actions or inactions taken by the organisations the participants represent. Finally, in stage six, we explored the relationship between the identified discourses and subjectivity in how the participants’ subjective experiences influenced how they took up discourses of safe sport and anti-Indigenous racism.

Results

The participants and documents produced three discourses: 1) Anti-Indigenous racism does not require a separate policy; 2) Policies alone are insufficient: Safe sport education and resources are needed to address anti-Indigenous racism; and 3) TRC’s CTA are not being treated as a priority by Sport Canada but NSOs want to act in consultation with Indigenous organisations.

Discourse 1: anti-Indigenous racism policies are not required because their safe sport policies are inclusive of everyone, including Indigenous peoples

Importantly, while five of the eight NSOs positioned EDI within safe sport policies, none of the NSOs mentioned anti-Indigenous racism or the CTA in their safe sport policies. The EDI policies did not indicate how incidents of discrimination would be handled, and only one NSO (NSO 4) referenced its code of conduct within its EDI policy, which outlined how such incidents are handled. The remaining NSOs had details of how incidents of discrimination would be handled in their code of conduct or some form of discipline, complaints, investigations, or dispute resolution policy, but the connection between the EDI policies and the sanctions for incidents of discrimination was not made clear.

When asked if their NSOs had policies specifically addressing anti-Indigenous racism, all 10 of the participants said they did not have such policies. Speaking directly to this, Taylor of NSO 1 said, ‘I don’t think we specifically address it anywhere necessarily. It’s a more broad, anti-racism … And I think it’s probably in our equity and diversity inclusion policy, rather than something specific’. Similarly, Thomas of NSO 3 stated that his NSO’s policies, including safe sport and EDI, are broadly defined: ‘[EDI policy] may not specifically refer to Indigenous people. I know in [the] safe sport [policy] … we don’t specifically identify any one group of people, whether they’re new Canadians, Indigenous, [or] people of colour’. Connor of NSO 4 said that his NSO’s policies are also broadly defined: ‘Do we specifically say we want you to be inclusive to Indigenous peoples? No. But we say that you need to be inclusive of all peoples’. This finding was supported by our archival research. Five of the NSOs’ websites included EDI policies within the safe sport webpage. Of the remaining three NSOs, one had a suite of safe sport policies that included abuse policies, dispute resolution policies, discipline and complaints policies, as well as others, but they did not have an easily identifiable EDI policy. The remaining two NSOs had many different safe sport policies but did not include EDI policies within the safe sport webpage or safe sport policy suite, but it was included in their general policies. Importantly, none had anti-Indigenous racism policies on their websites.

When asked if NSO staff saw an opportunity to create a policy specifically addressing anti-Indigenous racism, many participants spoke of the challenges of creating such a policy. Katherine of NSO 5 stated, ‘having to name everybody is challenging, because then you may not be inclusive, because it may not name everybody … I would hate for somebody to not feel included’. Jane of NSO 6 expressed the difficulty of having to create a policy specifically addressing anti-Indigenous racism:

We have this kind of generic diversity and inclusion … because if we make one for Indigenous [peoples], then we’ll have to make one for Black people, then we’ll have to make one for Asian [people] and then, you know, where do we draw the line? At what point do we stop?

These findings were supported by our archival research. Five of the NSOs included definitions within their EDI policies that mentioned Indigenous peoples along with other equity-owed groups. Two of the NSOs had EDI policies but did not specifically refer to any group of people, and one did not have an EDI policy on its website. Of particular note, one NSO had many EDI resources as well as anti-racism education resources and had an EDI statement that committed to an anti-racism movement. No specific group was identified in any of the NSOs’ safe sport or abuse policies.

Discourse 2: policies alone are insufficient: safe sport education and resources are needed to address anti-Indigenous racism

When asked how anti-Indigenous racism could be addressed by their NSOs, many of the participants questioned if policies would be effective. Thomas of NSO 3 expressed, ‘the failing could be, it’s [the policy] just something on a piece of paper, and no one ever looks at it’. Connor of NSO 4 questioned the effectiveness of a policy addressing anti-Indigenous racism and ensuring a safe and supportive environment: ‘So, I really don’t think policies are going to do much because I don’t think people read them. Even if someone read them, I’m not sure … their actions necessarily will change’. Concerning the TRC’s CTA regarding anti-Indigenous racism, Ben of NSO 4 stated, ‘When I read through a lot of the specific sport recommendations, in my personal view, it’s more of operational recommendations than it is policy’.

The participants noted the enforcement and development of policies, broader education, and resources were needed to address anti-Indigenous racism in sport. Taylor of NSO 1 highlighted the importance of having policies, adequate action, and enforcement: ‘You can have the policy, but if there’s no concrete action behind it … [it’s] just a piece of paper’. Some of the participants argued that education and resources would be the best method of addressing anti-Indigenous racism. Madeline of NSO 2 emphasised that training and education are needed much more than a policy addressing anti-Indigenous racism: ‘I see a problem in creating a policy that’s just for anti-Indigenous racism … because what we need to do is the proper training in certain areas’. Madeline noted, ‘We may have to look at training and education as augmenting the policies that we have in place’. Allison of NSO 3 highlighted the importance of education and training and emphasised that policies are a great foundational tool, but that: ‘It’s not just … The policies can be there, and it can still be a bad environment if no one applies what’s listed or if no one knows how to benefit out of the policy’.

Our archival research showed that all the NSOs participating in our research had resources and training with the Respect in the Workplace and/or the Respect in Sport Programme on their websites. The Respect in the Workplace programme includes several main programme elements: Power dynamics in the workplace; Defining, Dealing with and Reporting Bullying, Abuse, Harassment and Discrimination (BAHD); Empowering the Bystander; as well as other related elements (Respect Group Inc n.d.-a). The Respect in Sport for Activity Leaders programme includes similar components as well as legal responsibility and ‘duty of care’, hazing, physical development, preventing BAHD – the leaders in Safe Sport Canada among others (Respect Group Inc n.d.-a). None of the Respect in Sport programmes had any specific education on anti-Indigenous racism. Four NSOs had specific reference to the CAC’s Safe Sport Training, but it was unclear if it was mandatory; only three of those NSOs made it clear that it was mandatory for athletes, staff, coaches, officials, and board members. One NSO had additional safe sport resources and educational videos concerning instances of harassment and abuse and how to deal with them, including the third-party investigation and complaint process, though they were not specific to any group of peoples.

Under their safe sport webpages, five NSOs had EDI resources with links to educational resources from different organisations such as the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) or the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity (CAAWS – now rebranded as Canadian Women and Sport), which focused on improving participation of girls, 2SLGBTQ athletes, and also on inclusion working groups. However, none of these EDI resources were specific resources on anti-Indigenous racism. Three of those NSOs had modules focused on Indigenous peoples within their EDI or safe sport resources that included the Aboriginal Coaching Modules, which were developed by the Aboriginal Sport Circle (ASC) and CAC, and other modules focused on Indigenous culture training, specifically the Sport for Life E-learning Indigenous culture training.

Within the Aboriginal Sport Circle (n.d.) Aboriginal Coaching Modules there are three different learning modules included in an eight-hour workshop: 1) Holistic Approach to Coaching, which includes information on creating a positive coach environment, knowledge on the Medicine Wheel, the Four Pillars Value System, and how to create constructive coach-to-community relationships; 2) Dealing with Racism in Sport which includes lessons on defining racism, risk monitoring, assessment analysis, and mitigation, as well as situational learning and application; and 3) Individual and Community Health and Wellness, which includes education on understanding the community you coach, mental health and sport, personal and community health practices, diet and nutrition, health conditions and diseases, and influencing change. The Sport for E-Life training, designed by the Indigenous Leadership Development Institute of Canada, includes information on the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal-Crown relations (Sport for Life n.d.). This training includes specific education on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s CTA; nevertheless, it was unclear if any of these trainings were mandatory.

Discourse 3: the TRC’s CTA are not being treated as a priority by Sport Canada but NSOs want to act on the CTA in consultation with Indigenous organisations

When asked what could be done to address anti-Indigenous racism, the participants noted that they need more funding, expertise, and resources. In a statement that was echoed by others, Daniel of NSO 7 asserted, ‘While I don’t think you’ll find anybody in my shoes who would disagree [with] the importance [of addressing anti-Indigenous racism], we’re under-resourced’. In a similar vein, Connor of NSO 4 emphasised that to truly address the TRC’s CTA there needs to be more support from Sport Canada: ‘To really actually do this justice, and rather than just pay lip service, I think we really need to see that extra support come from Sport Canada, and to see a real and true partnership with the ASC [Aboriginal Sport Circle]’. Jane of NSO 6 emphasised on-going difficulties surrounding funding from Sport Canada:

This is where our conundrum is: we could give back to the Indigenous community but then the funding has to come from somewhere and right now, unfortunately, our women’s team just had their funding cut yet again. So, it’s really hard sometimes to justify giving to those communities when one of our own programs is suffering…

Overall, the participants highlighted that the TRC’s CTA need to be treated as a priority by Sport Canada so NSOs can address them. Connor expressed that the TRC’s CTA have not been implemented as they should be:

If we look at the TRC’s Call to Action, they haven’t really been followed through … Sport Canada’s level, which is really who it’s designed for … But, you know, we’re keen to do our part, because it’s going to take everybody to really see some meaningful change … We need to see that investment in sport.

Daniel noted, ‘If that’s not a priority, then it’s a “nice to do” and so a lot of the “nice to dos” don’t get done, because … we’re struggling to do the [other] requirements’.

Some participants emphasised that they would need instruction and direction from Sport Canada to implement specific actions surrounding the TRC. Daniel stated, ‘we need a direct directive from our funding partners and our stakeholders’. Some participants referred to the directive and mandate from Sport Canada in relation to the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS) and safe sport policies and the difference in how the TRC’s CTA are being treated. Connor stated that he did not think NSO 4’s safe sport policies were created with the TRC’s CTA in mind:

I point to, like, the UCCMS where an NSO is mandated to adopt [the UCCMS], you know, we didn’t really have a lot of options there. And so that’s where we point to Sport Canada and say … there needs to be something specific there around the TRC that needs to be embedded at the top level, and then we can implement it.

When asked what considerations NSO staff or safe sport policymakers would make if they were to create policy addressing anti-Indigenous racism, many participants stated these policies would need to be created in collaboration with Indigenous sporting bodies or Indigenous NSO members. Allison from NSO 3 stated that such a policy should be ultimately written by someone who is Indigenous or has a background in anti-Indigenous racism policy making:

I would say I’m a person that doesn’t believe in creating policies … using the words of someone that doesn’t have the experience, right? So, I don’t think that I would be the best person to create that policy because I don’t have the experience. I don’t have the background.

Jane of NSO 6 argued,

I really do think it would be beneficial to have someone within the Indigenous community to help us create some of this policy … I can’t just create this policy … I’m not from that community. I would love to work more with someone from the Indigenous community … and that’s what we’re trying to do.

Many of the participants expressed they were already or would be taking the approach of listening and collaborating closely with Indigenous peoples to deliver programming, and they would need to do this as well if they were to create a policy addressing anti-Indigenous racism. Madeline of NSO 2 noted,

We will listen and learn from our Indigenous leaders. And we will ask for their guidance in how to work to be able to deliver training or to be able to educate people. We won’t walk in and assume that we have the answers because we don’t.

To address anti-Indigenous racism, the participants emphasised the need for resources and a mandate from Sport Canada to address reconciliation in Canada. The participants also emphasised the need for collaboration to create any policy addressing anti-Indigenous racism and representation on committees that create policy. We will discuss each of these discourses and their implications in the following section.

Discussion

Through our analysis, we found that the participants did not construct a separate anti-Indigenous racism policy as a safe sport issue in Canada because the NSO’s current stance was that all forms of racism are addressed through EDI policy. By applying the WPR approach and a critical settler colonial lens, below we discuss the problem with specifically excluding addressing anti-Indigenous racism from safe sport policies. We will also discuss the problem of how discourses surrounding reconciliatory responsibility (Brooks-Cleator and Giles 2020) are being constructed. Our analysis of the three discourses provides valuable insights into the perspectives of NSO staff and policymakers and how they continue to exercise power in deciding if and how the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTAs are addressed within their organisations. We argue that by deciding not to fully address Call 90, these NSOs perpetuate settler colonialism.

Discourse 1: anti-Indigenous racism policies are not required because their safe sport policies are inclusive of everyone, including Indigenous peoples

The first discourse constructed anti-Indigenous racism policies as unnecessary because existing safe sport policies and EDI policies are supposedly already inclusive of everyone, including Indigenous peoples. Many of the participants asserted that their organisation’s EDI policies were created to be very broad to ensure they address all equity-owed members. The participants also asserted that the biggest challenge with creating a policy addressing anti-Indigenous racism was that they would then need to make a policy for every other category of racialised athlete.

The NSOs’ EDI policies reveal that while equity-owed members including athletes, coaches, and officials experience significant problems within sport environments, the experiences of Indigenous athletes are not problematised as being different from any other groups – despite the TRC’s demand they be addressed separately. The broad, colour-blind approach to the construction of EDI policies does not address the root causes of anti-Indigenous racism. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015a) explained the many barriers and unique experiences that Indigenous peoples have faced. Safe sport policies that remain broad and open force equity-owed athletes into a sport system that has historically been exclusionary rather than creating inclusionary and safe spaces for them to participate (Gurgis et al. 2022). The mainstream sport system continues to be exclusionary and wrought with unequal power relations that disadvantage Indigenous athletes (Paraschak 2013), which by consequence does not allow Indigenous athletes to meaningfully participate in sport. A one size fits all approach to safe sport policies promotes the assimilation of Indigenous peoples into a settler colonial sport system rather than creating safe spaces for them to participate in sport.

By not acknowledging the historical discrimination and continued systemic racial bias against Indigenous peoples, EDI approaches do not fully commit to an anti-racism movement (Morris 2020) and thereby reinforce settler colonial sporting structures (Forsyth 2020). Further, by adding Indigenous peoples into the broad category of EDI, NSOs are eliminating the specific need for attention towards the TRC’s CTA and Indigenous peoples’ experiences in sport (Rajwani et al. 2021). The effect produced by this representation is that it alleviates the pressure on NSOs to fully address anti-Indigenous racism and, as a result, there is no consideration of how safe sport and EDI policies could be altered to ensure that the unique challenges and barriers to sport that Indigenous athletes face could be addressed. One of these barriers is a lack of cultural sensitivity in coaching and programming, which affects Indigenous youth participation (Schinke et al. 2013, Mason et al. 2019). Other challenges include a lack of resources and opportunities, including a lack of transportation for rural Indigenous youth as well as the large costs to pursue elite sport (Mason et al. 2019). By understanding these culturally specific challenges, mainstream sport organisations (e.g. NSOs) will be able to reflect on how these challenges marginalises Indigenous peoples in sport and how a more inclusive sport environment could be created (Schinke et al. 2013). Safe sport policies and programming should thus be altered to ensure Indigenous athletes can meaningfully participate in sport.

Bacchi (2009) emphasised that it is important to consider what fails to be problematised in policies. In this case, anti-Indigenous racism is not problematised as a part of safe sport. To advance safe sport policies, there has been advocacy for clearer definitions of the different types of abuse in sport as well as specific consequences for these behaviours (Mountjoy et al. 2015, Gurgis and Kerr 2021). Scholars have advocated for the implementation and evaluation of culturally relevant safe sport policies and adequate procedures, as well as education and disciplinary enforcement strategies (e.g. Mountjoy et al. 2016). In addition to these efforts, we advocate for more clearly stated definitions of different forms of racism, including anti-Indigenous racism, in NSOs’ safe sport policies, as well as clearly defining how such incidents should be handled.

Discourse 2: policies alone are insufficient: safe sport education and resources are needed to address anti-Indigenous racism

The second discourse the participants and documents constructed was that policies alone are insufficient, and that education, training, and resources are needed to address anti-Indigenous racism in sport. Not having specific policies that address anti-Indigenous racism indicates that the NSOs believe that anti-Indigenous racism is not an issue that is different from other forms of racism in sport which was assumed to be already covered in NSO’s EDI policies. However, based on our analysis, NSOs did recognise it is a problem in Canadian sport but that policy might not be the best method to address the issue.

Drawing on Bacchi’s (2012) approach, the NSO staff and policymakers represented the problem as being as a lack of education and training on anti-Indigenous racism. Of particular note, three NSOs had links to specific Indigenous programming on their websites, including the Aboriginal Coaching Modules and the Sport for E-Life training. The Aboriginal Coaching Modules specifically contribute to addressing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) Call 88 with its emphasis on long-term Aboriginal athlete development. This programme specifically responds to the ‘identified need for a national coach training curriculum that reflects the uniqueness of Indigenous culture, values and lifestyles’ (Aboriginal Sport Circle n.d., para. 2). It also has a specific module on dealing with racism in sport which is specific to anti-Indigenous racism, thereby contributing to the TRC’s Call 90. The Sport for E-Life training is significant because it provides specific training on the TRC and its Calls to Action by providing information about reconciliation to non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. These are both significant trainings as they provide education on the history of the TRC through the Sport for E-Life training and training on anti-Indigenous racism and how coaches and other members of sport could be creating a more culturally safe environment for Indigenous athletes to participate through the Aboriginal Coaching Modules.

With the exception of these three NSOs, there is a profound silence produced by having education and training on safe sport but not specific education on anti-Indigenous racism as part of safe sport. There is once again not a consideration by most NSOs that anti-Indigenous racism is different from other forms of abuse. Anti-Indigenous racism needs to be understood as a specific form of harm and must be addressed separately from other forms of abuse as it is ongoing race-based discrimination experienced by Indigenous peoples (Government of Ontario n.d..). In Canada, structural racism, including an ongoing legacy of colonialism, land dispossession, as well as discriminatory federal policy practices such as the Indian Act and residential school system, has continued to influence the social, political, and cultural circumstances of Indigenous peoples, which has informed a clear social hierarchy that leaves Indigenous peoples disadvantaged and denied resources and with settlers maintaining power (Loppie et al. 2014). Not having specific anti-Indigenous racism training and education perpetuates the assumption to the public that anti-Indigenous racism is not an ongoing problem.

We advocate for specific, consistent, and mandatory training for NSOs on the historical traumas of colonialism and its persistent effects as well as its implications on Indigenous peoples feeling unsafe and unsupported in sport. Consistent with other scholars’ recommendations, this curriculum should include anti-colonial education (Szto et al. 2020, Joseph et al. 2021, Noce-Saporito 2021). For example, Szto et al. (2020) advocated for Hockey Canada to fully adopt the TRC’s CTA, including implementing anti-Indigenous racism education and training and changing hockey culture to re-distribute power to racialised athletes including Indigenous athletes, coaches, officials, and administrative staff. Following such an approach will require all sport administrators to take up the responsibility of education and ensure that there is a consistent effort to address anti-Indigenous racism.

Discourse 3: the TRC’s CTA are not being treated as a priority by Sport Canada but NSOs want to act on the CTA in consultation with Indigenous organisations

The third discourse was that Sport Canada is not treating reconciliation as a priority; however, NSOs are willing to act and want to do more to address the Calls to Action through consultation with Indigenous communities. By failing to allocate funds, resources, and support to NSOs to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA, Sport Canada reinforces settler colonialism through settler silence. It is also a settler silence when NSOs pass off this responsibility to Sport Canada. The participant from NSO 6’s conundrum of not wanting to/being able to allocate funding towards Indigenous communities when its women’s team had had its funding cut provides a clear hierarchy with how funding is allocated by NSOs, with Indigenous peoples falling beneath other equity-owed groups. Importantly, there was a willingness and desire from NSO staff and safe sport policymakers to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA, which was a very positive takeaway from our research. Many participants also explained that they felt a sense of responsibility to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA and that anti-Indigenous racism was a significant issue. However, there was a lack of clarity on how they could address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA and anti-Indigenous racism without a directive from Sport Canada. While, certainly, Sport Canada ought to issue a directive to treat the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA as a priority and allocate more funding, resources, and support, NSOs must also recognise their responsibility to address the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA, and in particular Call 90.

Interviews with some participants like Ben, who explained how he thought the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA were ‘operational recommendations’ rather than policies, and Daniel, who noted that addressing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b)CTA are ‘nice to dos’, illustrated a profound misunderstanding of the intent of the CTA. Daniel noted that ‘nice to dos’ usually do not get done without proper funding and directives. This demonstrates that government – and thus NSO – priorities tend to shift in response to public opinion. The problem representation of safe sport as being worthy of a large allocation of funds and a firm mandate from the federal government (Woolf 2022) and the lack of a similar allocation of funds to implement the sport-related CTA reinforces the CTA as mere recommendations and anti-Indigenous racism as being unproblematic – or at least less problematic than other safe sport issues. This speaks to the discursive construction of categories of maltreatment, with physical, sexual, and emotional maltreatment being constructed as top priorities while relegating anti-Indigenous racism to being less of a priority. Ultimately, if NSOs and Sport Canada want to make concerted efforts towards addressing reconciliation in Canada, then the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) CTA cannot be treated as recommendations or ‘nice to dos’; instead, the CTA related to sport must be fully resourced through a mandate from Sport Canada. It is essential for NSOs and Sport Canada to continuously reflect on the ways in which they can address reconciliation in sport, as they were called upon to do, while not solely relying on Indigenous sport organisations and their limited resources to do that work for them.

Limitations

This study was limited by the type of NSOs that were included. We were able to interview seven participants from six summer NSOs and three participants from two winter NSOs. A more diverse representation of winter NSOs would have enabled us to have broader perspectives and perhaps identify different discourses. Another limitation was that this study focused on the perspectives of NSO staff and safe sport policymakers. Although this was the population we wanted to interview, it would be beneficial to gain perspectives from participants in all levels of sport, from top stakeholders and sport administrators to athletes. In addition, future research is needed on different levels of sport such as provincial and territorial sport organisations and local sport organisations in Canada to examine how/if they deliver anti-racism policies and programmes. There should also be more research conducted on how anti-Indigenous racism policies and programming can be designed and implemented. Most importantly, there is a need for research on the perspectives of Indigenous athletes, coaches, officials, administrators, and sport administrators on how they experience (or do not experience) safe sport.

Conclusion

Using Bacchi’s (2012) WPR approach, we demonstrated that anti-Indigenous racism is not viewed by NSO staff and policymakers as a safe sport problem but instead as an EDI problem. However, within the EDI policies of the NSOs we analysed, anti-Indigenous racism was not perceived as being a unique problem and was thus left unproblematised. These practices contribute to settler colonialism via the erasure of Indigenous peoples’ experiences. By not considering these experiences, NSOs are exercising power by deciding who is worthy of having a safe sport experience. Resolving this issue will require Sport Canada, NSOs, and all settler sport organisations to take up this responsibility to address anti-Indigenous racism and reconciliation in Canada. By highlighting the dominant discourses of safe sport and anti-Indigenous racism and how they are being constructed by NSO safe sport staff and policymakers, this research can give valuable insight into how these issues can be addressed together rather than separately. Creating a safe sport culture in which everyone can thrive and succeed in sport includes addressing the TRC’s CTA, and it is everyone’s responsibility to do so.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the participants for their contributions to this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [435-2020-0792].

Notes

1. We use the preferred term ‘Indigenous peoples’, which refers to First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, and in some cases the less accepted term ‘Aboriginal peoples’ as it appeared in scholarly literature and archival materials.