UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Legacies of the Canada Games: a critical analysis of claims Smith, Douglas A. 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1993_spring_smith_douglas.pdf [ 4.67MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0054678.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054678-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054678-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054678-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054678-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054678-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054678-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

LEGACIES OF THE CANADA GAMES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS By Douglas A. Smith B.A. University of B.C., 1974 A THESIS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Education, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MARCH 1993 © Douglas A. Smith, 1993  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)  Department of  Gad.S4v de j^Ertickii -  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  1911  ,r--(^  ^(  evir  ii  ABSTRACT The Canada Games is a multi-sport Games with twenty-five years of history, having rotated to every province in Canada, and is now into its second cycle, that is, now staged in some provinces for a second time. It is a significant part of the Canadian sport system, each time involving the Federal Government, all twelve provincial and territorial governments, a civic government, over one hundred sports organizations across Canada, several large corporate enterprises and many smaller businesses, and thousands of volunteers, staff, officials, coaches, managers, and athletes. A considerable amount of concentrated effort, resources, and financial support is required to stage a Canada Games every two years. Throughout the history of the Canada Games, numerous claims of legacy have been made. Such claims are most common in reports from governments and host societies, but are also found in the literature in a variety of publications. In this study, the literature was analyzed, and it was found that claims of legacy fell into five broad categories: facilities, equipment, officials, community spirit and pride, and sport development. Evidence in support of each claim was researched. Documentation was available on facility development and equipment purchase and disbursal over a period of twenty years. Little evidence could be found in support of the other claims of a legacy. A population which fulfilled the qualifications of long-term knowledge of the Canada Games and the Canadian sport system was chosen to sample. It  iii was recognized early that the qualified persons available may be seen to have a vested interest in the Canada Games by virtue of employment or association with organizations or governments that have directly or indirectly endorsed the Canada Games. In an effort to reduce problems of bias, persons were also interviewed or surveyed from the academic ranks, the media, civic recreation, and individuals, such as coaches and officials. The sample was divided into three groupings: those with a vested interest (VI), those with a potential vested interest (PVI), and those with no apparent vested interest (NAVI). The sample was surveyed by questionnaire or in person over a period of eighteen months. Each person was asked whether he or she agreed with each of the five claims of legacy. Respondents were encouraged to elaborate, and to also provide a rationale for each opinion. All interviews were recorded by the author as notes. The task of data analysis entailed interpretation of answers as either agreeing with, or disagreeing with, the claim of legacy. It was found that many answers could not fit either category, so a third category was used for "Yes or No" answers. Fifty-seven records were critically analyzed. It was found that the "Yes or No" answers which also were accompanied with greater elaboration yielded the best insights into the problems of legacy claims. There was fairly strong support for a claim of a legacy of facilities. Those who had reservations pointed out facilities that have fallen into disuse or  iv that have encountered problems of operating deficits. Several persons referred to a negative legacy of building Olympic-sized swimming pools in smaller Canadian cities. A claim of a legacy of equipment was supported by some, but questioned by others. Those who supported the claim generally could cite good examples of equipment still in use for the benefit of specific sports in Canada Games host communities. Those who questioned the claim referred to the legacy as short term or a less significant legacy. A claim of a legacy of officials also yielded mixed support. Some respondents strongly agreed, but many questioned the longevity of the effect. A lack of community sport infrastructure to support officials' certification and development was noted. A claim of an improved community spirit and pride was widely supported, but little evidence beyond anecdotal reference was offered. Many felt that the claim was self-evident. A claim of a legacy of sport development was also widely supported, but the few who did question the claim wanted to know more about the meaning of the claim. Was the effect local, provincial, or national in scope? Is it a cause and effect relationship? What part of the sport system has seen development because of the Canada Games? The responses were multiple and varied. The study concluded that legacy claims were made in too general a  V manner, with proponents of the Canada Games often using legacy claims as a rationale for continued funding and support. Legacy claims need to made more specific with particular reference to a specific item and the group benefitting from the legacy. In addition, since little evidence exists in support of such claims, it would be in the interest of those with ongoing responsibility for the Canada Games to undertake studies which measure the potential legacy effect in several areas. Finally, it was noted that those who write and speak about the Canada Games should be more careful using the legacies argument because generalized claims can be misleading and, at times, lack meaning.  vi  TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ^ ^ii ABSTRACT ^vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ^vii LIST OF TABLES ^1 CHAPTER ONE ^1 Introduction ^4 The Canada Games in the Canadian Sport System ^13 A Four-Year Cycle ^21 Legacies and the Canada Games ^22 Investigating the Legacies of the Canada Games ^24 Structure of the Study 26 CHAPTER TWO ^ ^26 Review of the Literature ^27 Scholarly Research ^32 Government Publications ^33 Other Literature ^37 Summary ^41 Looking Ahead 42 ^ CHAPTER THREE Method ^42 ^49 Description of Subjects ^53 Methodology - Data Collection ^58 Data Analysis 61 CHAPTER FOUR ^ Findings ^61 ^61 Legacy Claim - Facilities Equipment ^78 ^78 Claims of a Human Legacy ^86 A Claim of Community Spirit and Pride ^90 Claims of a Legacy of Sport Development ^94 Other Claims of Legacy ^94 Further Responses 100 CHAPTER FIVE ^ ^100 Summary of Research Problem, Method, and Findings ^105 Conclusions and Suggested Future Studies ^121 Implications ^125 Bibliography Appendix One - Canada Games Research Questionnaire ^ 131 ^134 Appendix Two - List of Persons Interviewed  vii LIST OF TABLES Table^  Page  1. Target Group - Data Collection  ^51  2. Capital Budgets from Canada Games, 1985 - 1993  ^60  3. Summary of Facilities Improvements, Saint John  ^61  4. Summary of Facilities Improvements, Kamloops  ^61  5.  Responses by Groupings: Facilities  ^65  6.  Canada Games Sport Equipment Budgets  ^71  7.  Selected Canada Games Sport Equipment  ^71  8.  Responses by Groupings: Equipment  ^73  9. Responses by Groupings: Officials  ^79  10. Resonses by Groupings: Community Spirit and Pride  ^85  11. Responses by Groupings: Sport Development  ^89  CHAPTER ONE^  i  Introduction The Canada Games movement has become firmly entrenched as an integral part of the amateur sport system in Canada. Every two years, each of the provinces and territories in Canada puts together a large contingent of athletes, coaches, managers, and Mission staff for fifteen days of competition in the hosting community. A great deal of time, effort, and money is committed by each provincial or territorial team into putting together the best representatives to compete in the largest, on-going multi-sport games in Canada. As such, the Canada Games has become a significant part of the rotation of sport activity in the lives of persons in provincial and national sport systems. In the four years preceding each Games, thousands of volunteers commit long hours of preparation for the upcoming Games. Each host community recruits a total of about six to seven thousand volunteers for varying commitments of time, which range from several years to a only a few days. Each person volunteers time in support of the "causes" - the Canada Games and the community itself. Agencies and businesses from both the private sector and the public sector are also recruited for their support. In this way, much more is achieved than could normally be done with the budget and volunteer labour available to an individual Canada Games. To host a Canada Games at this time requires a budget in the range of seventeen to twenty-five million dollars, of which at least half is spent on facilities in the hosting community'. Millions of dollars of private and public  2 funds are spent in the name of the Canada Games every two years. With the Canada Games so firmly entrenched within the plans of sport organizations, governments, and communities, and considering all of the time, effort, and funds that are spent in the name of the Canada Games, then it would be reasonable to expect regular review of the relative value of the Canada Games to Canadians. Some internal review of the Canada Games has been done, although little or no documentation is available to show the design, methods, and results of the study (Canada Games Council 1977). From records that are available, it would appear that all such reviews have been internal to sport ministries, and small in scope. There would appear to be little review available that has been critical in nature. The purpose of this paper was to begin to examine critically what has been written about the Canada Games. Using critical analysis, statements were examined, grouped into categories, and summarized. A survey and interview process of persons who have a strong link to the Canada Games movement was undertaken to further investigate insights into various claims of legacy made within the literature. A lengthy process of investigation into the meaning and implications of statements of legacy made in the surveys and interviews has yielded further insights into these claims. Conclusions regarding how the word "legacy" is used in association with the Canada Games are offered, with implications for further research added.  3 When the study was begun, the questions that guided the investigation were the following: 1.  From the written record, what claims of value or legacy have been made regarding the Canada Games?  2.  Can these statements be meaningfully reduced to a few categories?  3.  What evidence can be found in support of these claims?  4.  Do relevant persons from the amateur sport system, government bodies, civic representatives, and scholars agree with these claims? If not, what insights are offered?  5.  What are the criteria needed to select a sample of individuals who are qualified to speak in an informed manner about the Canada Games movement?  6.  What is not being printed about the Canada Games, that, in good conscience, should be?  7.^What further research should be carried out with respect to the legacy of Canada Games? This chapter provides an overview of the Canada Games within the Canadian amateur sport system, delineates the players involved, and summarizes the four year process applied to a given Games from inception to conclusion.  4  The Canada Games in the Canadian Sport System Amateur sport in Canada has grown and matured in the last thirty years, since the passage of the 1961 Physical Fitness and Amateur Sport Act, to the point where sport organizations exist at the community, regional, provincial, and national levels. Organized sport ranges from recreational participation, to organized developmental programs like coaching, leagues, and camps, to organized competitive events on a provincial scale, and finally to highperformance competitions and programs on a national or international scale. At the community level, clubs, associations, leagues, societies, individual volunteers, schools, colleges, universities, and municipal staff organize sport. It would be very difficult to find a Canadian community of any size that was not actively involved in organizing some type of sport competition or program. At the provincial level, provincial sport organizations (PSOs) are responsible for the promotion, development, and coordination of their sports. They work in conjunction with registered members and member clubs to further their sports. They are, in part, funded through core grants from provincial governments, or government agencies. At a national level, national sport organizations (NSOs) carry out programs that are nation-wide in focus, including the implementation of high-performance goals for the national and international arena. In addition, there are a number of associations which are organized for goals that bridge many sports, such as the Canadian Olympic Association, the Sport Federation  5 of Canada, Canadian Federation of Sport Organizations for the Disabled, the Commonwealth Games Federation, the Canadian Colleges Athletic Association, the Canadian Centre for Drug-free Sport, and many, many more at both national and provincial levels. Governments also play a significant role in leadership, funding, and support services to sport at the national, provincial, and municipal levels. Competitions are hosted by local clubs, associations, and other groups in both large and small communities across Canada. These competitions range from recreational events for local athletes, to events designed to attract high performance athletes. Each PSO will choose to sanction a number of events in its official calendar of events for that year. Most of these events are again locally organized with varying levels of support from PSO's, but the norm is minimal involvement from parent organizations. A few competitions are organized by PSO's, but because of limited resources, they are very reliant on club and volunteer support. Even at the level of national events, organization is primarily carried out by hosting clubs and organizations, with technical support from the relevant PSO and NSO. A quite different sort of competition is the phenomenon of multi-sport games. There are numerous forms of multi-sport Games, from locally-driven recreational festivals, to Games at a regional, provincial, national or international level. Most of the larger ones are the result of a bid endorsed by a municipal government in an effort to host a Games which are held on an  6 annual, two year, or four year cycle. These multi-sport competitions are different from other competitions in that they involve several sports staged concurrently, government groups are normally more directly involved since athletes, coaches, managers, and team staff representing provinces, territories, or even the nation are sent to compete, and governments often have some direct funding in the staging of the events. At the international level, the most prominent Games that Canada regularly competes in, and irregularly hosts, are the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games, the Pan American Games, and the World University Games. Canada has hosted two Olympics, one Commonwealth Games, a Pan American Games, and a World Student Games in recent years. At the national level, the Canada Games are hosted every two years. At a regional level, such Games as the Western Canada Games, Atlantic Coast Games, and Arctic Games are regularly held. At a provincial level, games are held on a regular basis, with BC hosting two per year, and most other provinces hosting annually or every two years. Many parallels can be drawn between the Olympics and the Canada Games. This should not be surprising, since when the Canada Games were first proposed, they were promoted as a "Canadian Olympics" (McLaughlin, P. and D. McDonald 1978). Both Games stage several sports concurrently, with Canada Games sports mostly "Olympic" in profile. Both Games receive athletes who are representatives of their country or province. Much of the  7 same organization, terminology, and precedents can be drawn between the two Games, enough to support the concept that the Canada Games was somewhat modelled after the Olympic Games. One could go so far to say: The Olympics, with approximately a seven hundred million dollar budget, the Commonwealth Games with an one hundred million dollar budget, a Canada Games with approximately a seventeen to twenty-five million dollar budget, all host roughly the same number of athletes, all establish athletes' villages, feed, transport, accredit, provide security for athletes, all market and advertise the Games, all organize ceremonies, and all introduce a significant cultural, hospitality, protocol, and organizational elements that are inherently similar, but quite different in scale. In particular, elements like security, hospitality, media broadcasting, and protocol tend to be much more expensively planned and implemented in larger Games (Stothart, J., interview by the author, Kamloops: 1992). Because of the infrequency of hosting other major Games in Canada, we can say that the Canada Games is Canada's largest multi-sport Games hosted on a regular basis. The Canada Games are hosted every two years, alternating winter, then summer, like the new schedule for the Olympic Games. The Canada Games had its first seeds of interest as early as the 1920's, but it was not until the 1960's that any plans were made in detail (McLaughlin P. and D. McDonald 1978). The Games arose as a consequence of greater involvement from the Federal Government in amateur sport, in terms of funding, infrastructure development, and in support for sport organizations. The motivation for the creation of the Canada Games can be arguably linked to the goals of increasing government support for amateur sport, of improving the performances of Canadian athletes, and of improving the sport infrastructure  8 across Canada, and thereby satisfying some of the global goals of sport ,  ministries, NSO's, and other sport bodies at that time: 1.  The Canada Games movement complements Federal and provincial programs in the growth of amateur sport in all the provinces and territories of Canada.  2.  The Canada Games involves three levels of government in the support of sport.  3.  The Canada Games provides a forum for the best athletes in the country, and in doing so, gives these athletes experience in large multi-sport Games, indirectly preparing them for international Games.  4.  The Games promotes national unity. The Canada Games adopted the motto "Unity through Sport" from the outset (Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks 1987; Macintosh 1985).  The involvement of the Federal and provincial governments in organizations such as the Interprovincial Sport Council has led to a steady formalizing of the goals, objectives, rules, policies, and processes for planning and implementing a Canada Games. The governing body of the Canada Games, the Canada Games Council, for most of Canada Games history, consisted of representatives of NSO's, government agencies, and appointed volunteers, but with no paid staff to carry out its goals and objectives. The task of the Canada Games Council was to oversee the Canada Games movement,  9 protect the integrity of the Games, similar to the role of the IOC, to provide direction for host communities, and to enforce the goals, objectives, and policies of the Canada Games, working in close partnership with sport, governments, and volunteer groups (Canada Games Council 1985). In 1992, the Canada Games Council was incorporated as a multi-sport organization in its own right. A president has been appointed, staff have been hired, committees have been formed, and the administrative team reports to a Board of Directors on a regular basis. The first Canada Winter Games was held in Quebec City in 1967, in Canada's Centennial year. It was a year of national pride, but it was also a year when the nation was re-examining its Federal identity in light of events in Quebec (McLaughlin P. and D. McDonald 1978). From that first Games, the Canada Games motto, "Unity through Sport", has lived on to become an objective, and also has been linked to the marketing of the Games by its proponents. By 1991, the Games had rotated to each province in Canada: 1967^Quebec City, Quebec^(winter) 1969^Halifax-Dartmouth, Nova Scotia (summer) 1971^Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (winter) 1973^New Westminster/Burnaby (summer) 1975^Lethbridge-S. Alberta (winter) 1977^St. John's, Newfoundland (summer) 1979^Brandon, Manitoba (winter)  10 1981^Thunder Bay, Ontario (summer) 1983^Saguenay-Lac St. Jean, Quebec (winter) 1985^Saint John, New Brunswick (summer) 1987^Sydney-Cape Breton (winter) 1989^Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (summer) 1991^Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (winter) 1993^Kamloops, British Columbia (summer) The rotation of the Games has been set and it is known that the next three Canada Games will be: 1995^Grande Prairie, Alberta (winter) 1997^Manitoba (summer) 1997^Newfoundland (winter) The first two Canada Games featured the best athletes in Canada, with each province recruiting its own team to compete in an interprovincial competition for points and medals. The format was changed by 1971 to lessen the imbalances between the three large provinces, Ontario, B.C., and Quebec, and the other smaller provinces. Eligibility rules were adjusted to position the Canada Games athletes as the best of the defined age group. These were largely, though not exclusively, the best junior athletes in the country, as defined by each NSO. The Canada Games were thus seen as a steppingstone in the developmental cycles of young athletes, where some would go on to international competition, but most would see the Canada Games as their  11 "Olympics", that is, the highest level of competition in their careers, or perhaps the experience that was formative in their decision-making processes with regard to sport in their lives 2 . Funding for the Canada Games seems to have undergone three distinct stages. 3 For the first sets of Games, from 1967 to 1971, budgets were developed as each part of the Games program became defined; they were funded using a zero-based budget format. In accounting terms, this means that funds were allocated only as programs and costs were detailed and approved. In the next stage, from 1971 to 1991, funding formulas were used to determine cost-sharing for the required elements of the Games: capital and operating programs. The capital program was designed to provide sport facilities to host the high-performance sport competitions. A conscious choice to select smaller communities to be hosts has also forced a decision to embark on a significant capital construction program. Many claims of legacy have been tied to this goal. The operating budgets are used to actually run the Games. Costs have escalated with inflation over the years, and operating budgets have increased accordingly. The third stage, commencing immediately after the 1991 Games has been that of restraint and a shift to a greater role for private sector fundraising. By comparing capital budgets since 1985, we can see a trend to decrease spending: 1985 1987 1989 1991  Saint John Cape Breton Saskatoon Charlottetown  $13 500 000 $ 9 400 000 $ 9 200 000 $10 600 000  12 1993^Kamloops^$ 8 500 000 4 Inflation has been increasing actual costs, but we can see, by comparing the budgets listed above, that actual spending power, even without indexing the dollar for inflation, has decreased. Furthermore, the core capital program for the 1993 Games is six million dollars from the three government partners. The remaining $2.2 million required to build capital works for the 1993 Games has been raised from marketing and fund-raising efforts of the host society itself, a shift in trends for future hosts. The operating budgets of Games in those years has been comparable, ranging from six to eight million dollars, but again with the host society in 1993 contributing a significant part of the $7.6 million total to increase the standard of these Games to those of earlier times (Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society 1990). The costs of sport equipment, food services, transportation, temporary improvements, medical services, publications, translations, security, communications equipment, and numerous other goods and services have increased over the last eight years, yet the budgets have decreased both in real and comparative buying power. The Canada Games will likely undergo more changes in the current economic environment, and with a dedicated staff who will begin to market, promote, and oversee the Canada Games movement, the Canada Games may be quite a different entity by the year 2001. A Four-Year Cycle The process by which a community becomes a Canada Games host  13 community, prepares for the Games, and then stages the event is approximately four years long. These stages can be designated as: pre-bid, bid, host society, the Games , and post-Games. Pre-bid About four and a half years from the proposed staging date, the province that is next in line to host the Canada Games begins to hold preliminary meetings with interested host communities to set the stage for bidding. Each community that has expressed interest is informed of the rules of the bid process, and is also asked to prepare for a commitment of financial resources that accompany an official bid. Normally, a letter of intent to bid will be submitted to the relevant provincial committee. The commitment for funding is the immediate concern for potential host communities. To date, the capital program has been jointly funded by Canada, the host province, and the host community. The funding formula has changed over the twenty-five year history of the Canada Games, with the latest revision agreed to in 1987. At meetings in that year, and from a series of decisions afterward, the capital funding program, to be in effect following the 1991 Games, was divided as a three way cost-share: two million dollars from the Federal government, two million dollars from the host province, and two million dollars from the host community (Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society 1992). In comparison, for the 1991 Canada Games, the capital program was also based on a three way cost-share: $4.5 million from Canada,  14 $4.5 million from P.E.I., and three million from the host community (PEI Canada Winter Games Society 1991). The 1993 funding formula will be used in 1995 in Grande Prairie, in 1997 in Manitoba, and in 1999 in Newfoundland, unless governments collectively agree to change the funding formula. The capital program is not limited to six million dollars, but the required contribution by each level of government is established with that funding formula. In 1989, the City of Kamloops agreed to up its contribution by $1.2 million, and the Host Society agreed to fund-raise to bring the total to $10.5 million (Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society 1991). The shift in emphasis to volunteers raising funds for capital works can be said to be a shift in trends within the Canada Games movement. The first major question in the pre-bid phase, then is, does the political will exist, to commit two million dollars to the bid? This question should not be asked in isolation, however. Knowing which facilities will be required, which standards must be met, and the costs for such improvements, is part of that decision-making. Feasibility studies have been carried out by potential host communities in anticipation of hosting. In reality, however, many communities have staff do a quick evaluation of what is already in place, then add up what is missing, evaluate costs based upon similar projects built elsewhere, compare the total to the six million dollars available, then make recommendations based upon the preliminary evaluation. A full feasibility study including consultants' fees takes months to complete, and therefore is sometimes not completed prior  15 to a bid. This problem will be dealt with more fully in later chapters. If the political will exists to financially support a bid, then the first major hurdle has been passed. The temptation of a two million dollar investment for a six million dollar legacy is often used in the argument over the value of bidding. Although the municipal government has no obligation for cost-sharing in operating funds, the City may be asked to contribute services and support in making the Games successful. Other potential problems in garnering support for an official bid are varied in nature, but usually involve gaining the support of potential partners. An example of this need for partners stems from questions such as, " Where will the athletes' village be located?" Many communities must gain the support of the college or university system or the school system to be able to bid in a credible fashion. Other groups from which bid communities may need support are local "governments" like Regional Districts, business groups, unions, provincial agencies, prominent citizens, and advocacy groups. The support of community groups will also help to determine operating budgets. The formula for operating budgets again has varied, but it can be described as a cost sharing formula between the Federal Government, the provincial government, and the host society's fund-raising efforts. A preliminary operating budget is often drawn up in the pre-bid phase. The number of interested communities that follow through to submit a full bid varies from Games to Games, depending upon the province. Some of the determining considerations are the size of the province, the number of eligible cities (by  16 size s) and the predisposition of the relevant provincial government to consider supporting a particular city or region because of economic development or other reasons not related to sport development. An informative anecdotal reference to the kinds of lobbying, preparation, and decision-making that can occur in a pre-bid for a major games is found in Frank King's 1991 book Plavinq the Game. He, and others before him, have indicated that, in order to win the community's support, one has to have answers for the vocal opposition with regard to funding, facilities planning, and the gaining of the support of partner groups. Bid Phase Once a community has cleared potential obstacles of funding and support, then it can enter into the bid phase. The hosting province sets a deadline and format for submissions of interest. From those submissions, the provincial government announces which communities are in the running and schedules the activities to be undertaken in the selection process. In the case of the 1993 Canada Games selection process, of more than twenty communities that expressed interest and attended meetings, only five in fact entered the bid phase. One of the factors rarely mentioned is the community's perception of how good its chances are. Various factors such as who else is bidding, the political dynamics of the region, and conflicting community projects reduce the numbers who actually commit to the next phase. It can work much differently in other provinces. For the 1997 Games, only one  17 community, Brandon, submitted an application by the established deadline. Winnipeg was chosen as the Canadian bid city for the 1999 Pan American Games and, as such, withdrew its expression of interest. For the 1999 Canada Winter Games, at this time, the Newfoundland sport minister has indicated in advance that, in his opinion, only one community, Cornerbrook, will be in the running. Canada Games Council works with the government partners and sport organizations to establish and select a Site Selection Committee. The Committees' responsibilities are to set up an evaluation process, communicate and assist the communities to be effectively evaluated, carry out the evaluation, and then make a recommendation to the Federal Minister of Sport, who will make the final decision. The membership of the committee can vary, but usually involves representatives from governments, from sport, and from Canada Games Council. During the bid phase for major multi-sport events, two official requirements are normally included. The first task is the preparation, completion, and timely submission of a bid book. The primary function of a bid book is to clearly delineate the merits of the host community's bid, detailing operational issues, touting the community's ability to host, highlighting existing facilities and venues, and also extending the vision of what the Games experience will be for participants and visitors. The bid book allows the site selection committee to better acquaint itself with the potential host community's  18 plans. In recent years, bid books have become more elaborate through competition and by precedent. The bid book, the costs of administering a bid committee, and staging a bid day all have costs, and each host community must decide how much it is willing to spend on the chance of winning the bid. The other bid phase official requirement is bid evaluation day. The present Canada Games selection process allows the potential host community one day to host, entertain, and impress the Site Selection Committee. This day has no preset format, but would normally include site tours of facilities, the athletes' village, operations centres, presentations from various groups, and examples of the culinary, entertainment, and hospitality and tourism sectors of the community. The bid committee of the potential host community will try to convince the Site Selection Committee to decide in its favour. Bid days vary greatly in style, amount of effort, and the messages conveyed, but again the trend is toward upscale, high-energy effort. 6 It would be remiss to forget the part of lobbying, winning friends and partners, and all the other activities that are part of a successful bid. The business practices necessary to win bids in the private and public sectors are also a part of a successful effort for any community's bid phase. After all bid books and bid-day efforts are concluded, the Site Selection Committee deliberates, and then makes a recommendation to the Federal Minister of Sport. The recommendations are not made public, and the bid communities are not supposed to know which community received the highest  19 ranking, although it is typical that in the inner circles of the sport community unofficial standings are well-known. The Ministry may choose a community not ranked first as was done for the 1994 Commonwealth Games, but since the recommendations are not public, it is not publicly known whether the Ministry followed the recommendations or not. From conversations the author had with a Canada Games Council Site Selection Committee representative, it would appear that the Ministry at that time, under the MinisterJean Charest, followed the recommendations of the committee in choosing the 1993 Canada Games host community. It is unknown what happened with earlier choices. Because there is a delay of one to two months before a selection is announced, it would also be remiss to not mention that other activities go on behind the scenes. For an Olympic Games bid, it is not unusual for potential hosts to continue to lobby, win friends, and seek the support of IOC members. Similarly, with Canada Games bids, communities may choose to continue to influence the decision, using the above-mentioned practices. The public announcement by the Federal Minister of Sport of the Federal Governments' choice of award is the final part of the bid phase. Host Society Phase Winning the bid to host the next Canada Games is the start of a four-year process of preparation for a two-week event. The chosen host community is obliged to initiate the formation of an incorporated' Host Society, which will be responsible, in collaboration with defined and yet-to-be defined partners, for the  20 planning and execution of the Canada Games. Recruitment for the Society with its appointed officers - president, vice-president(s), secretary, treasurer, and Board of Directors - is the first order of business. Some of the same members of the bid committee may choose ,or be appointed, to be part of the Host Society, but many do not. After the committee is fully recruited and operational, its business is that of planning and organizing a Games: planning budgets, hiring staff, securing space, developing policies and procedures, devising goals, objectives, milestones, action plans, purchasing, contracting, negotiating agreements, implementing the capital construction program, communicating plans, advertising, promoting and marketing, fund-raising, lobbying, recruiting volunteers, and all of the other myriad tasks to be undertaken in preparing for a Canada Games. The role of a Host Society in organizing a Games has been handled well by other writers in the form of final reports, although much of it is in unpublished format that is not necessarily useable by other Host Societies 8 . It is sufficient for the purposes of this chapter to say that the four-year preparation phase involves long hours from many volunteers and staff, with many hurdles to clear before planning can be translated into execution. Games Events The Canada Games itself is held over fifteen days. The athletes arrive late on a Friday night from every province of Canada. Their first day's experience is that of the athletes' village - accommodation, services,  21 entertainment, feeding, and meeting participants from other areas. Practice sessions and orientations precede the Canada Games Opening Ceremonies, which include all the officials, athletes, coaches, managers, and team staff in a two hour ceremony that is traditional and expected of a major Games. The first week features half of the sport events and half of the athletes. On the Saturday after the completion of week one competitions, the first group of athletes depart, and the second week athletes arrive for a second week of competition. A closing ceremonies concludes the activities, after which the athletes depart, the volunteers return to their everyday lives, and the sport community thinks ahead to the next Games. Post Games The Host Society normally takes from six months to a year to conclude its business, which includes budget resolution, asset inventory and disbursal, reporting, and many other tasks. The Host Society is then disbanded, and the Host Community has officially concluded its role with the Canada Games. What remains are the facilities, and other legacies, which the remainder of this paper will attempt to bring into focus. Legacies and the Canada Games As early as the pre-bid phase, the word "legacy" is used in public documents and public addresses as part of the rationale for hosting a Games. The argument used is the following: that, because a major Games leaves a variety of legacies, it will benefit the citizens of the area, and therefore has  22 extrinsic worth. This sort of reasoning can be found in publications ranging from newspapers, to government reports, to Host Society promotions, and even to scholarly works dealing with Canadian sport. The following examples are taken from a variety of sources as partial evidence that claims of legacy are made by the Federal Government, Olympic Games organizers, Canada Games spokespersons, and journalists, among others: Hosting has benefited Canadian sport. The legacy includes facilities, technical expertise, and an improved sport system (Canada , Fitness and Amateur Sport 1992). In our preparations for the Olympic Games in Calgary, we spent a great deal of time explaining to the citizens of Calgary why we should host the Games. Many taxpayers perceived it as an attack on their pocketbooks. Our job was to convince them that there were sound economic reasons ...The benefits to the City and the province would be realized for many years...Supporting the Olympic Games in Calgary would be the best thing to be ever done by Calgarians (King, Frank. Vancouver: address to Sport BC Symposium 1991). Awarding the Games to Kamloops would allow the City to add a major provincial aquatic facility, a needed rowing and canoeing complex, and an improved sport infrastructure. This would be an expression of the original concept of the Canada Games - to present the sport development opportunity that we could not other wise expect (Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Bid Committee 1989). Apart from the legacies of new and improved facilities, the training and upgrading of officials, and the experience gained by thousands of people within a community in organizing a major cultural event, there is another legacy, perhaps just as important. Hosting a Canada Games seems to draw a community or region together in a common cause to encourage young athletes to test their skills and courage in competition and learn about themselves, their neighbours, and their country (McLaughlin, P. and D. McDonald 1978). The notion that major Games have value because of their legacies is  23 pervasive in literature pertaining to Canadian sport. The Canada Games is only one of the many major Games hosted in Canada, but it is unique in that it was born in Canada, designed, planned, and executed by and for Canadians, and is a significant element of the Canadian sport system. The argument that the Canada Games is a valuable part of the Canadian sport system is based, at least in part, upon the assumption that legacies are a result of hosting the Canada Games. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine that assumption. Investigating the Legacies of the Canada Games Some of the preliminary questions that were pursued at the outset of the study were the following: 1.  Who has written on the topic of the Canada Games? What has been written?  2.  Is the legacies argument pervasive in the literature? What types of claims have been made? Who has made them?  3. 4.  What claims are the most common? What evidence is offered in support of such claims? What other sources can be found in support of these claims?  5.^What kind of meaning can be assigned to the claims of legacy? Following the preliminary readings and further investigations, the following objectives were set: 1.^To accurately document how the notion of legacies has been used  24 with reference to the Canada Games. 2.  To analyze and determine different categories of legacy claims used across all available documents.  3.  To further investigate meanings of statements made about legacies.  4.  To find supporting evidence for legacy statements, if available.  5.  To provide contextual and comparative analysis of how the notion of legacies have been used.  6.  To determine who is qualified to speak knowledgeably on the topic.  7.  To interview and survey a sample of knowledgeable persons.  8.  To report on the findings of the investigation.  9.  To critically examine the findings.  10.  To pursue unexpected outcomes for further clarification.  11.  To provide conclusions and implications for further research. Structure of the Study  Chapter Two contains a review of the literature which covers the scholarly record, but also includes many unpublished reports. Chapter Three explains the methods used in the study, including a description of the sample population, data collection methods and data analysis methods. Chapter Four reports on the basic findings of the study. In Chapter Five, conclusions are detailed for the reader. Implications for further research are offered before the  25 final summary, which concludes the study. 1. These figures can be traced by comparing budgets found in final reports from host societies, as listed in the bibliography. 2. Derived from interviews with members of Canada Games Council in 1991 and 1992. 3. These stages are the author's comments, and are based upon analysis and source materials found within final reports and financial summaries from Canada Games host societies from 1969 through 1993.  4. This figure represents the "contracted level of expenditure as defined in the 1993 Canada Games Multi-Party Agreement 5. Although there is no minimum size prescribed, there is a threshold of limitations on available facilities with which to host participants and visitors. 6. Comments made by the Director of Sport, Canada Games Council. 7. An officially registered Society under the Societies Act of the relevant province, which requires registration of officers, bylaws, yearly statements of finance, auditing, and other public disclosure requirements. In the Bid Phase, there is no requirement to incorporate as a Society. 8. Statements from numerous key volunteers from the 1989, 1991, and 1993 Games have expressed this as a criticism of host society final reports. Canada Games Council has recognized a need to revise the format and content of Games reports.  26 CHAPTER TWO In Chapter One, the Canada Games was described as an ongoing multisport games, insights were offered into the four year cycle for an individual Canada Games, and the problem to be investigated was briefly stated. Chapter Two reviews the literature, summarizing what has been written in scholarly works, in government publications, in official reports, and within various materials which will be categorized as other literature. In looking at the collective opinion within journals, reports, government publications, and less so, but still present in scholarly works, it can be reasonably argued, at the very least by the number of occurrences of like statements, that the notion that the Canada Games is responsible for a number of positive legacies has widely been stated and accepted as conventional wisdom. Research undertaken for this study followed a need to answer to the following: 1.  What claims have been made?  2.  What evidence can be found in support of these claims?  3.  What are the opinions of an informed population, with reference to these claims?  4.  What meanings can be attached to these claims? Review of the Literature  The review of the literature is divided into three sections: a. Review of Scholarly Research b. Government Publications c. Other Literature  27 Scholarly Research The Canada Games as a topic for research has been given less attention than larger Games such as the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. Major Games have received the attention of researchers interested in a variety of issues, including topics in sport science, sports medicine, coaching theory, sociology of sport, ethics in sport, administration of operational concerns such as media relations, volunteers, transportation, medical services, doping control, athletes' village, food services, security, communications, use of technology, financing, marketing, public relations, ceremonies, protocol, and sport programming, and also many topics in the sport-politics debate. Studies dealing with the Canada Games are infrequent. Literature pertinent to the questions asked in Chapter One most frequently comes from writers who are examining the sport system in Canada as a whole. The Canada Games are usually seen as an example of the increasing involvement by the Federal Government in amateur sport. The first Canada Games was held in 1967, though the seeds of interest in holding a "Canadian Olympics" dated back as early as 1924, but with little interest from the Federal Government to fund such an enterprise until the 1960's, little more than talk occurred (McLaughlin, P. and D. McDonald 1978). The Federal Government's first direct involvement in the funding and regulation of sport came in 1961, with the passage of Bill C-131, An Act to Encourage Fitness and Amateur Sport (FAS Act). The fitness of Canadian citizens was  28 questioned, and the Act was seen as one way to publicly address the issue. The waning performances of Canadian athletes in multi-sport Games and in international competitions was another concern to be addressed by the Federal Government's intervention. Over the next nine years, the funding and support for the national sports governing bodies (NSO's) increased, and it was in this context that the Canada Games was born. Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks (1989) suggest that Federal programs in sport have been examined in three ways: 1.  Studies that trace the Federal Government's involvement in sport since the passage of the FAS Act, and that have followed the interactions of persons and groups central to the program in question.  2.  Studies in sport sociology that attempt to analyze broadly the interactions of sport and Canadian life in general.  3.^Studies by the authors which examine the relationship between the Federal Government's sport initiatives and its wider sociopolitical goals. Following this argument, it could then be argued that the Canada Games is usually discussed in the context of numbers one and three above. Meynaud (1966) proposes three major motivators for the state to intervene in the area of sport: safeguarding of public order, improving of physical fitness, and national prestige or pride.  29 Harvey and Proulx (1988) state that the initiatives from the Federal and provincial governments in sport are linked to the development of the welfare state through programs to reduce social inequalities and promote fitness, and to the promotion of nationalism. Macintosh (1985) similarly argues that the Federal Government has used sport in two major ways: to promote national unity, and to change the lifestyles of Canadians. Macintosh, Bedecki and Franks (1987) observe that during the time when the Canada Games were first being organized, there was a national unity crisis in Canada, with most of the attention centred in Quebec, following the Quiet Revolution. The Canada Games was first held in Quebec City, in Canada's Centennial Year. The motto for the Games was, and still is, "Unity through Sport". Government leaders were seen as valuing sport as a political means to counteract divisive and separatist forces. Broom and Baka (1978) and West (1973) suggest that, by 1971, the Federal Government was largely funding programs that attained a higher degree of visibility for its involvement with sport. The Canada Games was one such program; it was enhanced by being a good example of cooperation between the provinces and the Federal Government in the area of sport. Pooley and Webster (1975) believe that in sport at the municipal level, sport and politics are counterbalanced; politics does not significantly dominate the implementation of sport. At the national level, the influence of politics on  30 sport predominates. Politically, sport is seen as a factor of social integration, cutting across boundaries of language, culture, gender, and race. The Canada Games, as one of the Federal Government's largest initiatives in support of amateur sport, can also seen as a vehicle to develop athletes to the international level, where these persons represent their nation in an international theatre (Campagnolo 1979). Schrodt (1983), Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks (1987), and Macintosh (1988) suggest that the institution of the Canada Games has stimulated the development of provincial organizations that support amateur sport. The competition is of an interprovincial team format, with significant administrative and coordinating roles given to the branch within the government that deals with recreation and sport. Some of the provinces have departments to deal with recreation and culture, but less in the way of sport. The necessity of staffing, selecting, transporting, and providing for a provincial team every two years was a contributing factor in expanding the scope of the provincial sport ministries. Provincial governments also seem to have been more interested in sport because of their experiences in hosting the Canada Games (Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks 1987). In addition, a requirement to have a sport included as one of the core sports in the Canada Games program is that at least seven provinces have well-established provincial sport organizations (PSOs) for that sport. These PSOs, in turn, helped to organize and carry out the programs for their sport,  31 which in theory, furthers programs set out by NSOs, and thereby increased sport development and also the funding from the Federal Government (Schrodt 1983). One of the keys in sport development is to have technically sound, highperformance training and competition centres. The choice of which city gets federally funded centres is problematic. Funding from the Federal Government for the building of sport facilities has largely been allocated to the Olympics, Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, and the Canada Games, with very few exceptions. The Canada Games have been seen as a way to have the provinces share in the costs of building new sports facilities for Canadian athletes. Those within the sport system have sometimes suggested that the building of new facilities is a justification in itself for assuming the financial burden of the Games. A negative reflection on sport facilities construction is that some of the facilities built have done little to enhance the performances of elite athletes (Canada, FAS, Sport Canada Hosting Policy'). Broom e has questioned the practice of building high-performance facilities in smaller cities, away from larger populations of high-performance athletes. Greater numbers of athletes produce more user revenues, reducing operating costs; also supporting coaches and programs which further enhance both developmental and highperformance sport objectives. The on-going operating costs of certain facilities has proven to be a  32 difficulty for some host communities (Broom 1991; Macintosh, Bedecki, Franks 1987). Aquatics facilities, in particular, have left a burden of operating expenses for Canadian cities that have been former Canada Summer Games hosts. Facilities in the cities of St. John's and New Westminster are noteworthy cases where operating deficits required further capital or operating dollars to ensure continued use. The Federal and provincial governments have established trust funds that will provide operating funds for facilities in Calgary built for the 1988 Olympic Games, and in Victoria, for the Commonwealth Games in 1994. Similar facilities constructed for the Canada Games, situated in smaller communities, with similar operating costs, are being built without trust funds to offset operating costs. In summary, it is noteworthy that very little interest has been shown in the Canada Games as a topic for investigation. References to the Canada Games are found within scholarly works, but the extent of treatment has been minimal and infrequent. Government Publications  Government publications have usually one of two formats: annual reviews written by Ministry staff, and reports from a variety of sources such as Ministries, often as a prelude to policy, findings of a task force or review committee, and other reports from other non-sport Ministries, branches, divisions, or committees within the Federal or provincial governments. The  33 following are selected examples representative of Federal Government comments on the Canada Games: The (Canada) Games are an excellent unifying force; they create outstanding facilities and stimulate provincial sports governing bodies. Finally, they are a good example of Federal and Provincial, public and private cooperation in achieving a desired end (Canada, Report of the Task Force on Sports for Canadians, 1969). Due to the Games, thousands more athletes are now participating in local, regional, and provincial competitive events and, as well each host site has experienced almost total community involvement, resulting in a legacy of both human and physical resources (Canada, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1976-1977 Annual Report, 1977). The Canada Games have developed into one of the most significant factors in the development of athletic talent in this country. Beyond the purely competitive value of the Games are the less tangible but equally important legacies of mutual understanding and cooperation among participants, organizers and governments, of new and upgraded facilities which remain for the benefit of an entire community and civic pride within host communities (Campagnolo, I. FAS Report, 1977-1978, 1978). The Canada Games has been on of the most effective national programs...The Games have led the provinces to organize provincial teams and have much-needed facilities in smaller communities, while fostering an enormous...public awareness of sport (Campagnolo, I. 1978). It is clear even from these few examples that these Federal Government documents reveal a belief in a legacy justification for the Canada Games. Furthermore, it is striking how little the statements on legacies of the Canada Games have changed over the years. Other Literature At the time of the writing of this study, the one full length book on the Canada Games is called Jeux Canada Games: The First Decade, written by  34 McLaughlin and McDonald (1978). It was funded by Lotto Canada in a cooperative venture with FAS. It contains a narrative of the first six Canada Games. In terms of the legacies of the Canada Games, the following summarizes the pertinent content of the book: Apart from the legacies of new and improved facilities, the training and upgrading of officials, and the experience gained by thousands of people within a community in organizing a major cultural event, there is another legacy, perhaps just as important. Hosting a Canada Games seems to draw a community or region together in a common cause to encourage young athletes to test their skills and courage in competition and learn about themselves, their neighbours, and their country. The Canada Games Council, the organization responsible for the Canada Games, has also used the legacy argument: The objectives of the Canada Games movement include the following: ...To provide an opportunity for the Host Community and Host Society to gain new and upgraded facilities, promote increased participation and involvement in sport, recruit and train volunteers for community sport programs, develop a legacy for ongoing sport development, generate new sources of human and financial resources within the community, and by virtue of all the foregoing, enhance local pride and community spirit (Canada Games Council 1990). Host Societies Host Societies arise from the bid process. Once a community has decided to bid for a Canada Games, a bid committee is formed. The bid consists of an official application, a bid document which indicates plans for funding, details of venue sites, the athletes' village, transportation, and general Games' operations and presentations to a selection committee. The final stage is a one day visit from the Canada Games Council Site Evaluation Team. On that day, the bid committee has the attention of those who will recommend  35 communities to the Federal Minister of Sport. The final choice belongs to the Minister, in consultation with other factions within the Federal Government. The community that is awarded the Games becomes a host community. It is the responsibility of the host community to form a host society. The host society has the responsibility of organizing and conducting the Games, which includes building and upgrading facilities, training volunteers, and handling all aspects of the budget, in conjunction with its partners: the host community, the province, and the Federal Government, and perhaps others. Host Societies are a group of volunteers and staff that work together for four and a half years. Additional staff are hired, and thousands of volunteers make the event happen. In that period of time, the leadership of the host society comes to know the Canada Games intimately. Official documents produced by the host societies offer further insights into the notion of legacies. Examining documents produced by host societies reveals some of the same kinds of statements: 1. Burnaby/New Westminster 1973 Canada Games: Facility construction and renovation were important parts of the residual benefits New westminster/Burnaby have received for hosting the Games...In preparation for the Games, 15 of the 16 sports received direct assistance in improved or new playing facilities. The Games left a large surplus after having paid for the many permanent facilities and the sports equipment which remains in the communities ....The surplus medical supplies have been donated to community groups ...more than $500 000 was donated to amateur sport as a result of the Society's success at operating the first major lottery in the history of B.C. These communities...remember the Games with a deep sense of pride.  36 The Games left a legacy of new and improved facilities....The Games also left highly-trained personnel... (New Westminster/Burnaby Canada Games Society 1974). One of the best statements of what legacies might be involved comes from the City of Lethbridge: 2. Lethbridge/Southern Alberta 1975 Canada Games: The benefits which were actually accrued by Lethbridge/Southern Alberta from the privilege of hosting the 1975 Canada Winter Games cannot be overstated. The Canada Games Sportsplex; Canada's only world calibre ice speedskating oval; the Stan Siwik swimming pool; the upgrading of 26 different recreational facilities in Lethbridge and the surrounding communities; and the distribution of the Canada Games sport equipment are some of the visible benefits. Perhaps even more important are the discovery and development of a wealth of talent in our community, including some 3000 Games volunteers; the wealth of national and regional publicity which focussed on Lethbridge and Southern Alberta; the sense of belonging to the Community of Canada which was fostered; and the renewal of the confidence in the people of Southern Alberta that we have the ability to undertake substantial community projects and to do them well; the stimulation of interest in personal physical fitness, personal involvement, and the advancement of amateur sport as an important aspect of the cultural life of our area---these are among the important benefits to Southern Alberta of the Canada Winter Games (Lethbridge/Southern Alberta Canada Games Society 1975). c. Kamloops 1993 Canada Games: Mission Statement - The Games will be rewarding to all stakeholders and leave various sustaining and positive legacies for the people and the communities of Canada (Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society 1990). The assumption here is that the Canada Games is expected to leave legacies of some sort. The Legacy Awarding the Games to Kamloops would allow the city to add a major provincial aquatic facility, a needed rowing and canoeing complex, and an improved sporting infrastructure. This would be an expression of the original concept of the Canada Games - to present the sport  37 development opportunity that we could not otherwise expect...The development of officials will also receive a special boost from the Games. The Games will be the focal point of sport development in the Interior throughout the first half of the 90's, and the benefits will be apparent for decades to come (Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society 1989). Summary Many statements and claims of legacy are made by scholars, government officials, and Games family 3 leaders. Little evidence is offered in support of such claims. The exception to this point would be the facilities legacy, for which listings of capital works and details of capital budgets are readily available and are referred to with relative frequency. The assumption that capital works are a legacy is examined more thoroughly in later chapters. The claims of legacy are remarkably similar in the literature and pervade reports, scholarly writing, government official documents, and host society documents. In fact, many of the same key phrases are used. One might ask whether those who have produced documents have repeated the words of their predecessors, or whether they have come to the same conclusions independently. Part of the purpose of this study is to critically examine the oftrepeated conventional wisdom about the positive legacies of continuing to host multi-sport Games like the Canada Games. Although there are many different statements of legacy associated with the Canada Games, this study will use five broad groupings which reflect the most frequently expressed claims: 1. A legacy of facilities  38 2. A legacy of equipment 3. A legacy of officials 4. A legacy of community spirit and pride 5. A legacy of sport development A brief overview of the kinds of meaning attributed to these claims will help set the stage for late chapters. Legacy of Facilities The claim seems to be that the legacy of new and improved facilities is a result of the capital expenditures undertaken for each Games. The host society constructs facilities to meet the technical requirements of Canada Games competitions. Because capital works are permanent, and can be enjoyed by many citizens over many years, facilities are usually the first and most important legacy referred to in any serious statement of legacies of a multi-sport Games. A Legacy of Equipment To a lesser degree, equipment that is purchased or acquired for a Games has been referred to as a legacy, as long as it stays with the community. Sport equipment has been identified as one example of an equipment legacy. A Legacy of Officials The claim that a Games will leave a human legacy has been used on many occasions. More officials and better qualified officials is claimed to be a  39 beneficial result of having hosted a Canada Games. Certainly a host community has to train a large number of technical officials and perhaps the experience of officiating at a national championships will be instrumental in improving the chances that each official will continue to officiate in the host community. A Legacy of Community Spirit and Pride The claim that a community will have increased community spirit and pride after hosting a successful Games has been widely stated and to many would seem be self-evident, perhaps even definitive of what it means to host a major Games. One of the stated goals is to show off the community, hosting to a level to which pride will be an outcome. Certainly no one attempts to host a Games of which they cannot be proud. Volunteerism is today seen as one of the components that has a part of improving the quality of life within a community. Increased volunteerism as a result of having hosted a Canada Games is sometimes claimed as a legacy, but will be dealt with as an example of improved community spirit. A Legacy of Sport Development Several ideas are brought forth: the development of more provincial offices for sport, both in the government, and in the independent sport governing bodies, the development and implementation of programs to enhance sport, including coaching and technical programs and officiating programs, and local and regional development of particular sports, where little was present  40 before the bid. In a seminar on organizing multi-sport Games in Victoria, a workshop concerning legacy development was led by Dr. Roger Jackson who wrote and subsequently stated: The greatest single stimulus to the development of sport in Canada was the development of the Canada Games in 1967. Not only did it commit the Federal Government to ongoing support for sport, but it brought the provinces into funding sport for competitions, team development, and supporting provincial sport organizations. 4 A second argument in support of a legacy of sport development offered is that to host major competitions, groups must bid among competing organizations for the right to host. The three components necessary to forward a suitable bid are adequate facilities, competent and experienced organizers and officials, and previous experience at hosting. The experience of having hosted a Canada Games is seen as evidence of all three capabilities. New and improved facilities, experienced organizers and officials, greater access to sport equipment, improved club infrastructures, greater cooperation between municipal recreation departments, institutions, volunteer organizations, and sport organizing bodies and a human legacy of volunteerism are all combined to point to a legacy of sport development that extends to the community, the region, and indirectly to the larger sport community. Looking Ahead The claims of legacy made in the written record were taken to an informed population for their reactions and opinions. The objective was to find out whether these well-established beliefs were widely shared among those  41 closely associated with or highly knowledgeable of the Canada Games, or whether there were unpublished dissenting opinions that could add further insight into the problem. Chapter Three describes the methods utilized.  1. Cited in Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks 1987 2. E. Broom, Interview by the author, 1991. 3. Games family is a phrase used to describe those identifiable groups directly associated with the Canada Games. 4. R. Jackson, In an address entitled "Legacy Development A Critical Priority" at a sport management seminar in Victoria, 1992.  42 CHAPTER THREE Method One of the questions posed in the introduction was, "What claims of legacy are being made concerning the Canada Games?" Chapter Two summarized the claims of legacy, using three broad categories: facilities and equipment, a human legacy, and a legacy of sport development. The second question, "What evidence is there to support such claims?" can be partially answered through document analysis. Business plans and final reports from host societies, as well as Federal Government reports, list capital expenditures and projects undertaken and completed, and also indicate detailed operating budgets applied to equipment. An additional necessary piece of information will be equipment disbursal policies from host society administrative manuals, since equipment is only a legacy if it is left for the benefit of others. Evidence in support of certain legacy claims may be available in various documents, depending upon what constitutes credible evidence of legacy. If the assumption that funds spent on capital expenditures constitutes evidence of legacy, then there is ample evidence that multi-sport games like the Canada Games have left legacies of facilities over the last twenty-five years. In the survey described in this chapter, the population questioned was asked to respond to the claim of a legacy of facilities. Most respondents did not question the assumption that capital projects were a legacy, but as will be seen later, some did, and if their comments are valid, then it is insufficient to simply equate  43 funds spent on facilities with an equivalent legacy value. The relationship between funds spent and the value to the community is a more complex relationship that has a number of variables which should be taken into account if one is to speak meaningfully on the topic. An underlying assumption here is that if a bequest is left to a community as a legacy, that it has a positive and sustaining influence. Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks (1987) indicated that not every facility was seen by all as positive. In at least two cases, the problem of operating costs following a Canada Games, has been seen by some as a negative influence. Good documentation also exists for evidence of equipment left to hosting communities and provinces after a Canada Games. These records indicate that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of sport equipment and venue equipment have been left after each Games. The available evidence shows that considerable operating funds have been committed to equipment, and since that equipment has, as a rule, been left to the benefit of sport groups afterward, then it might be an easy conclusion that this is evidence in support of a claim of legacy. The population surveyed was also asked to respond to their beliefs in a claim of a legacy of sport equipment. Again, many reiterated what the literature has stated, that equipment is also a legacy of the Canada Games. But a few respondents questioned the claim, focussing on the relative value of the legacy and the duration of the legacy.  44 Although the dictionary defines the word "legacy" as a bequest left by a predecessor', the word "legacy" has additional connotations related to value. At some point, the word "legacy" may not be applicable if the item referred to has minimal value. At what point is a legacy no longer a legacy? Surely a legacy is more than a bequest. The bequest must have some lasting and appreciable benefit to the persons receiving the bequest. Few persons would question the legacy effect of forty canoes and kayaks, worth a total value of about one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, forming the basis for a provincial canoeing and kayaking program for the next twenty years. Some who would go so far to claim the boats are their facility. On the other hand, tennis balls, umpires' chairs, benches, singles sticks, and similar tennis equipment has far less value to the tennis community in terms of necessities, and would be of questionable legacy value. The word "legacy" is sometimes used to refer to all of the bequests, or changes and additions in facilities, equipment, attitudes, and structures in place as a consequence of having hosted a Canada Games. Can we meaningfully speak of all of these as legacies? Surely we classify them in a manner that collectively has an extrinsic value to some identifiable group. If we were to speak of a multi-million-dollar swimming pool in the same breath as a box of used tennis balls when referring to legacy, most persons would wonder how we were using the word "legacy". Yet, some of the reports mentioned use the word "legacy" in this way, referring to large capital projects, equipment , a human legacy, and an improved sport development as items that could all be  45 classified under a heading of legacies of the Canada Games. The word "legacy" has been used rather loosely; analysis of how it is used is a key element in providing meaning to claims of legacy with respect to multi-sport games. Evidence of legacy is more complicated than pointing to expenditures from various Games. Each facility, or equipment disbursal, has to be looked at individually to assess relative value. The question remains, though, whether the amassed facilities and equipment over several Games can be termed a legacy of the Canada Games. Are there instances that are significant in themselves, in either a positive or negative manner, such that we cannot evaluate that question easily? The examples of the Stadium costs and the Velodrome problems for the Montreal Olympics cannot and should not be forgotten. Are there such cases within the history of the Canada Games? In addition, it is important to use the clarifying phrase "legacy to whom"? Some identifiable group must benefit from a bequest or legacy, or else the legacy effect cannot be said to have occurred. When we speak of a legacy, we must always refer to a group. It will be seen in the next two chapters that the respondents to the interviews and surveys often used the word "legacy" in a non-specific manner, grouping unalike items together, and neglecting to refer to the object of the legacy claim. The claims of a human legacy have some problems of evidence. The claim of more officials may seem somewhat self evident but consideration of its -  46  value as a legacy may be more problematic. If the claim is that there are more officials, and better qualified officials, then a pre-assessment of the number and qualified officials needs to be done at the outset, an accounting after the Games would then give a clear comparison that might be used as evidence of potential legacy, or lack of it. No such projects have apparently been undertaken and completed with any precision. A study is underway by this author for the Kamloops 1993 Canada Games, but such evidence can only be offered as potential for legacy, since this program of officials development for the 1993 Games is not yet complete, and may not be representative of other Games. The question would still remain, "Can an increase in the number of officials be termed a legacy?" Part of the problem is that the word "legacy" is continually used to describe a variety of bequests, large and small, some tangible, many not, and all of varying duration. The population surveyed was asked to consider whether an increase in the number of officials should be considered as one of the noteworthy legacies of the Canada Games. Claims of community spirit and pride have been made fervently by a number of persons, and are particular favourites heard at seminars, speeches, and other speaking engagements. It is most often expounded by those who lived in the hosting community, and numerous anecdotes are offered in support of the claim. Again, little has been done to substantiate such claims, although public opinion polls conducted during various periods for the 1988 Calgary Winter Olympics (Ritchie, J. and M. Lyons, "Olympulse", 1990) provided some  47 data with regard to community spirit that might be used as a measure applicable to that particular Olympic Games. To the best knowledge of this author, nothing has been done for the Canada Games through its twenty-five year history. There is no question that the prevailing opinion is that community spirit and pride are improved after hosting a successful Canada Games , but again we might pause to reflect, "Can this be claimed as a legacy?" What is the extent of the spirit and pride? How long does it last? What are its sideeffects? What does it mean to have improved spirit and pride? Such insights were sought from the population surveyed. Increased volunteerism is even more ephemeral than the other two claims of a human legacy. With little work done to measure such effects, the claim could be reasonably questioned. Certainly there are many who have the belief that this is a real benefit of hosting a Games. The goal in questioning the population here was to seek insights into problems and solutions with the concept of a human legacy. Claims of legacy in regard to sport development are again difficult to support with direct evidence. If measurement tools had been applied to a community after receiving a Games four years before an event, and then the same measure were applied following the Games, some reasonable argument of evidence might be applied. And yet, as is evidenced by comments in Chapter Two from scholars, sport administration professionals, government representatives, and others, there is a strong belief that the advent and the continuing presence of the Canada Games has been instrumental in  48 developing amateur sport in Canada. Academics have dealt with this in part, using comparisons between the historical rise of organizations and the development of policies of sport associations and government bodies, and the partner funding and development for the Canada Games as an institution. In surveying the population chosen, opinions on the claim were sought, with indepth insight as to the extent and scope of sport development. Does the sport development legacy have a national, provincial, or regional scope? Are there examples where no legacy is perceived? Does the Games continue to stimulate sport development? In the interviews, an examination was made of, not just accord or disagreement with the claims made in the literature, but also the informed explanations for such claims. In addition, interviews were analyzed for unexpected statements not in accord with those voiced in the literature. The most difficult problem facing this study, however, was in selecting the population. Ideally, the population would have the following attributes: a.  be very knowledgeable about the Canada Games (experience with more than one Games)  b.  be knowledgeable about the Canadian sport system  c.  have sufficient in-depth acquaintance with the effects of a particular Canada Games on a region, province, or at a national level  d.  have a working knowledge of other multi-sport Games  49 e.  be sufficiently unbiased 2 to meet the rigors of good research  f.  be willing and able to speak freely on the topic  Although the number of persons who might qualify under all terms except e. above numbered over one hundred, very few persons qualified for all attributes listed above. A recognized weakness in the study right from the outset is that the total number of persons who might be unbiased in their opinion and who still qualify as knowledgeable was very few, perhaps as few as twenty persons. A significant unbiased sample not being available, the study was then structured to pay particularly close attention to dissenting opinions and to unsolicited responses with a goal to critical analysis of findings. Description of Subjects  The number of subjects could be many if all twenty-five years of Canada Games history were taken into account. The subjects could also be from communities from all across Canada and from various points of the development of the Canada Games. Some way of narrowing to the most informed subjects was looked for in a way that would avoid the most biased sample. Confining these persons geographically might also lead to results that would be pertinent to only one Games, and not applicable to Canada Games in general. Some of the subjects chosen were pertinent key personnel who were in attendance at the Canada Winter Games held in Charlottetown in February of 1991. The advantage of using a Canada Games festival as an opportunity to  50  interview is that those who are responsible for, or represent official bodies in regard to the Canada Games, are normally in attendance during a Games. These persons come from all across Canada. It is probably the only time that most of the current influential and prominent persons in the field are in one place at one time. All other persons were interviewed by telephone or in person at subsequent times. The latter persons were contacted by means of a mailed or facsimile-transmitted questionnaire, completed in April, 1991. Subjects fell into several categories: 1. Federal Government Sport Ministry employee 2. Provincial Sport Ministry employee 3. National Sport Organization representative 4. Provincial Sport Organization representative 5. Host Society Management personnel 6. Canada Games Council members and staff 7. Civic Recreation directors 8. Academics concerned with Canadian Sport 9. Provincial or Territorial Chefs de Mission 10. Individual coaches, managers, and officials 11. Media representatives Concern to find an unbiased sample was held as a high priority in selecting persons for interview and for the survey. In an effort to determine which representatives might be the most biased, three groupings were used.  51 Persons were considered to have a vested interest if they were employed by an organization that continues to fund the Canada Games or has a mandate to support the Canada Games by virtue of the organization's written policies. Persons who represent organizations that actively participate in the Canada Games were considered to have a possible vested interest because participation can be construed to be an indirect endorsement of the Canada Games program. A third category was established for persons who have no vested interest by virtue of employment or organizational endorsement. Any person interviewed from either of the three categories may have been, in fact, biased in opinion for or against the Canada Games. For the purposes of this study, the following three groupings were used as a tool for the analysis of responses: Vested Interest (VI)  Host Societies Canada Games Council Federal Government Sport Ministry representatives Chefs de Mission Provincial Government Sport Ministry representatives Possible Vested Interest (PVI)  National Sport Organization representative Provincial Sport Organization representative No Apparent Vested Interest (NAVI)  Media Academics Civic Recreation Directors Individuals (coaches, managers, officials)  52  All of those surveyed and interviewed had varying knowledge of the Canada Games. Basic criteria in selecting individuals included: a.  involvement in more than one Canada Games or in organizing a Games over a four-year period  b.  in-depth knowledge of the Canadian sport system and/or the Canada Games  c.^responsibility for the Canada Games at a senior level. Using these criteria above, the largest number of available persons for the study therefore were in the VI group, with the smallest number in the NAVI group. To overcome problems with this imbalance, extra effort to seek out and achieve interviews within the NAVI group were attempted, and further efforts beyond the main data collection period of time were undertaken. One hundred and six attempts were made by mail, fax, or telephone interview. Of the eighty-nine questionnaires, twenty-five were returned. All of the other persons were interviewed in person or by telephone. The chart below lists the target group and data collection method: Table 1. - Target Group/ Data Collection Target Group  Mail/Fax  Telephone  Interview  Fed. Govt. reps  2  0  1  NSO/PSO reps  1  2  2  C. Games Council 3  0  0  1  Chefs de Mission/Prov. Govts.  14  1  1  53 Host Society personnel^5^3^3 Recreation Directors^0^4^1 Individuals^ 2^5^2 Academics^ 1^2^1 Media^  0^3^0  Totals^  25^20^12  There were thirty-one persons in the VI group, five in the PVI group, and twenty-one in the NAVI group. The sending out and return of questionnaires took place in February and March, 1991. Interviews were conducted between February, 1991 and November, 1992.  Methodology - Data Collection Interviews A short pilot study was conducted, using key personnel of the 1993 Canada Games Society and PSO representatives as a sample group. Each person was interviewed in person, or over the telephone, using the interview guide listed below. Interview Guide - Pilot Study . Introductions and small talk . Relate purpose of study . Indicate responses are recorded  54 . Ask for elaboration, where possible . Give operational definition of the word "legacy" Questions: 1.  Can claims about legacy be made about the Canada Games?  2.  (If not, explain) (If yes, explain)  3.  What claims of legacy can be made? (please elaborate) (tell me more about that)  4.  What other claims can be made? (tell me more)  5.  Various authors have made other claims about legacy (choose one that has not yet been brought up). Do you agree with this claim? (prompt elaboration) Continue...  6.  What can you conclude about claims of legacy in regard to the Canada Games?  The pilot interview guide was tested with management committee members of the Kamloops Canada Games Society and several PSO representatives. Observations on the Pilot Study:  1.  The word "claims" was found to be leading when used at the beginning of the interview.  2.  The method of leaving the interview open-ended to start and then  55  focussing on other claims resulted in some unexpected responses, yielding, in several cases, greater depth of explanation and rationale. 3.  By coming back to the claims made in the literature, the interview maintained some focus, and a way of returning back to the purpose of the study.  4.  The final question did not produce any new information.  5.^The definition of legacy had to be re-explained on occasion. Some discussion ensued over other possible meanings. The pilot study also added valuable training for the interviewer in anticipation of the final interviews. After completing the pilot study in December, 1990 and January, 1991, a final interview guide was constructed. Interview Guide (Final Draft)  a. Introduction/small talk b. Purpose of Study: To determine what meaning we can give the word "legacy"in reference to the Canada Games. c. Explain that responses will be recorded. d. Read the operational definition of the word "legacy": Legacy usually refers to something positive that is left behind, much like a bequest.  56  Questions: 1.  Can the word "legacy" be used in regard to the Canada Games? (Please explain.)  2.  What other claims of legacy can be made? (tell me more about that, etc.) (continue with this line of questioning; avoid leading)  3.^In a review of literature pertaining to the Canada Games, writers have made certain claims. Please respond to each, and explain: A legacy of sport facilities...  1. 2.  A legacy of equipment (sport and other...)  3.  A legacy of trained officials....  4.  A legacy of sport development. References are made to local, regional, and provincial organizations having improved infrastructures, better experience, and more qualified personnel...  Can you think of other examples of a legacy of sport development? 5.  A legacy of community spirit and pride....  6.  A legacy of increased volunteerism...  7.^Are there any other claims that could be reasonably made about the legacy of the Canada Games? e. Thank you's.  57  Interview Principles  Efforts were made to adhere to the following principles: 1.  Be adaptable to unexpected responses and follow them up.  2.  Encourage in-depth answers.  3.  Use a semi-structured format.  4.  Avoid response effects.  The Interviewer  The researcher conducted all interviews. The status of the interviewer can evoke response effects. The interviewer, in this case, had an official role with the Canada Games, that of Vice President, Sport, for the Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society until the summer of 1992, when the interviewer took the position of Manager, Sport and Operations, for the 1993 Canada Games. At the start of all interviews, this was mentioned. It normally is part of the role of a Vice President and, in the researcher's case, later as a Manager, to research more about the Canada Games, in preparation for the upcoming Games. At the 1991 Canada Games, the interviewer also had Official Observer Status, representing the 1993 Host Society. In addition, the same kinds of introductions were used in telephone interviews. In the case of telephone interviews, a brief introductory letter was sent by facsimile to the person in question, preceding the interview. The same letter was sent by facsimile to all the targeted persons prior to the 1991 Canada Games. Questionnaires were presented in a similar fashion.  58 Interview guides were used with sufficient space to write comments right on the sheets. Attempts were made to make the recording of answers open to the scrutiny of the person being interviewed, if requested. Notes were taken throughout the data collection process. Record keeping for data collection consisted of tracking those targeted by checklists. As responses were collected, they were filed for later analysis. Each record consisted of two to five pages of hand-written or typed comments. The questionnaire used is found in the Appendix. Data Analysis From the open-ended part of the interviews, a summary of the salient points was made. Notes were taken during all interviews. These were usually read back to the person interviewed at the conclusion of each interview. Because in-depth explanations were attempted, a more qualitative approach to data analysis was taken. Quotations and key words were used in the findings. The researcher worked with the assumption that a qualitative approach through the use of direct quotations would provide the best summary of the pertinent opinion. As data were analyzed, some method of distinguishing biased comments was needed. Using the three groupings noted earlier, comments were analyzed to note whether they agreed with the conventional thinking about legacies, as noted in Chapter Two, disagreed, or offered new insights that could  59  be categorized as either in agreement with, or not agreement. A matrix was used to analyze the findings:  Subject (name, position): ^ Group (circle one):  Legacy Claim  ^  Agree  Vested Interest (VI) Possible Vested Interest (PVI) No Apparent Vested Interest (NAVI) Rationale Offered  Disagree  Rationale Offered  Yes or No  Facilities Equipment Officials Human legacy Sport Devt.  Some subjects offered opinions that agreed with the conventional thinking that multi-sport Games leave a legacy, and of these, some offered a rationale for that opinion. Others did not agree with that notion. Almost everyone interviewed offered some sort of reasoning, but in many cases, rationales were either circular in meaning, that is terms were defined as opposed to pointing to cause and effect relationships, or consisted of repeated conventional wisdom phrases. Either way, all comments were taken into account. The category Yes or No was used to account for those subjects who  60 contributed insightful commentary into the questions posed, or were noncommittal in their response. In many cases, these comments were the most useful in providing a meaningful critical analysis of each legacy claim. In addition, the fifty-seven records were then subjected to another level of analysis. Unexpected responses led to a greater level of understanding and insight into what was being said, and data were reviewed in light of these new insights. This data analysis was critical in nature, and in many cases led to more questions needing answers. The researcher then undertook further document analysis of the literature, and more importantly, used the telephone to seek further clarification from a number of key personnel from the interview list. Many of these clarified points are found in chapter five. Chapter Four details the findings of the study. 1. Woolf, H. B.editor, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1979. 2. Those who have a stake in a positive image for the Canada Games. 3. So many members of Canada Games Council were,at the time, provincial or Federal Government employees. In all, ten persons interviewed were also Canada Gaemes Council members.  61 CHAPTER FOUR  Findings Claims of legacy fell into five broad areas: facilities, equipment, officials, community spirit and pride, and sport development. At the outset of the study, it was an objective to know if relevant persons from the sport system, and those who study it, agreed with the claims as they were being made in the literature, and if not, what insights they could offer into the issues. The following sections report the findings of the surveys, interviews, and follow-up investigations. The structure of each section is as follows: a. background information/discussion b. The responses - statistical summary c. Analysis/interpretation with regard to bias d. Sample quotations by groupings e. commentary and summary  Legacy Claim: Facilities An examination of financial statements and final reports of each Canada Games gives clear indication of the funds spent on capital facilities. The following table outlines the capital budgets from the most recent Games:  62 Table 2.--- Capital Budgets from Canada Games, 1985 - 1993 Year  Host  Capital Budget  1985 1987 1989 1991 1993  Saint John Cape Breton Saskatoon Charlottetown Kamloops  $13 500 000 $ 9 400 000 $ 9 200 000 $21 500 000 1 $10 400 000  Capital budgets are used to construct new sport facilities, or upgrade existing facilities. How the funds are actually spent is a decision a Host Society makes in consultation with its partners. The Society's mandate is to conduct a Canada Games and since facilities that meet national standards are required to conduct the 16 to 21 concurrent national competitions within the Canada Games, the Host Society would normally conduct a study examining the facilities in the Host Community with respect to the improvements necessary to meet national hosting standards. Sport governing bodies and local sports groups are consulted, and a facilities construction and upgrade program is laid out and then approved by the Board of Directors, which includes representatives of each of the funding partners: the Federal Government, Provincial Government, Civic Government, and possibly others, before construction is begun. The following two tables outlines the facilities program from Saint John, 1985 and Kamloops, 1993:  63  Table 3. Summary of Facilities Improvements, St. John (1985) Sport  ^  Archery Baseball Basketball Canoeing Cycling Diving/swimming Field Hockey Lacrosse Rugby Sailing Soccer Tennis Track and Field Water Skiing  Improvements Undertaken  Field upgrade field upgrade, lighting, infields time clock and scoreboards new course, docking, storage facility route road repairs 50 m pool and diving tank two new fields general refurbish field upgrade, fencing facility upgrade two new fields seven new courts new 8-lane track with stadium new course  Table 4. - Summary of Facility Improvements, Kamloops (1993) Sport  Improvements Undertaken  Archery  new field construction, clubhouse  Baseball  new field construction; upgrade to existing field new floor course installation, boathouse, site improvements 50m indoor aquatic centre two new competition fields two new competition fields and clubhouse new site development and clubhouse fieldhouse, parking, and field upgrade upgrade to existing facilities development of 8-court tennis centre track surface, field house, site improvements course installation, site development, clubhouse minor upgrade  Basketball Canoeing/Rowing Diving/Swimming Field hockey Rugby Sailing Soccer Softball Tennis Track and field Water Skiing Wrestling  64  A preliminary analysis of the list of facilities from these two Games shows a construction program that spans several summer sports. But a close analysis of the whole facilities program may lead one to believe that the greater share of expenditures may in fact be mostly tied up in one or two facilities. In the cases offered, the major portions of the capital budgets went to the Canada Games Aquatic Centres. In the case of both the 1993 and 1985 Games, this accounted for approximately sixty percent of the total budget. The second largest expenditure in both cases was for the development of the new track and field facility at the University of New Brunswick in Saint John and University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops. Summer Games tend to build or upgrade track and field facilities for two reasons: the relative high profile of track and field events during the Games, and as a site for hosting opening and closing ceremonies. The capital program in these examples built several new facilities, providing prima facie evidence which would appear to be a potential sustaining legacy for the Host Community, and the larger sport community, but closer examination of some of the improvements yields some interesting results. Upgrades provide minor improvements to existing facilities. Many of these upgrades might be considered cosmetic in nature, or minor enhancements. Such upgrades are nice to have, but do not significantly enhance legacy claims. Specific analysis of what constitutes a legacy in the minds of those who  65  will use the facilities also uncovers some interesting opinions. In 1989 in Saskatoon, an impressive rowing and canoeing venue was built. The on-shore facility was built to service the needs of provincial paddlers and oarsmen for many years. But for some rowers and canoeists the facility could instead be defined as the craft on the water. An expensive on-shore facility is no good to a club that cannot afford shells, kayaks, or canoes. In this case, on-shore facilities, plus shells, plus a course equals a legacy. Without one or more of the three, some would claim that the legacy effect would not occur. In the last two Summer Games, no shells were purchased, described by some as, "An incomplete legacy." The most controversial issue in facilities for most Games is whether or not to build a pool, and if so, what type of pool. Kamloops debated the relative merits of an indoor versus an outdoor fifty metre competition pool. Even though an outdoor pool accounts for millions of dollars in the capital budget, local swim groups and the provincial sport organization called the outdoor option, "No legacy at all." The reasons are simple: Kamloops has an over abundance of outdoor pools already, and the harsh winters make the usage of such a facility minimal for developing swimmers and divers. In 1990, an outdoor 50 m pool with support facilities was estimated to cost between one and two and a half million dollars, depending upon the "bells and whistles" chosen (Johnson 1990). In this case, millions of dollars of a capital budget was described as "No legacy."  66 Another key point is that the gaining of a new facility must be weighed against the cost of operating that facility. In 1991, an indoor 50 metre competition pool with diving tank in Canada would have an annual operating deficit of about six hundred thousand dollars (Johnson 1990). A community might receive a six million dollar facility for a capital investment of two million, but face an equal amount over the next seven years. In the case of one Canada Games pool, the doors were locked for a year following the Games, until an operating agreement was worked out: Going back to St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1978, the costs associated with the Pool forced a closing of this facility for approximately one year immediately after the Games as dispute raged between the City and the Province as to who would bear the penalty of operating costs (Lesaux 1991 1 ). In another case, the pool was refit several times with significant costs to reduce operating deficits. One could question whether some communities can afford such a legacy. The Responses The question of a legacy of facilities generated the most interest among those surveyed. Every respondent had something to say about the topic, and many were able to elaborate and give examples. Of the sample of fifty-seven, fifty-seven responses were recorded, and additionally an analysis of positive responses, or responses that agreed with the claim that the Canada Games has been responsible for a legacy of facilities, of negative responses, or responses that disagreed that the Canada Games has been responsible for a  67 legacy of facilities, and of answers which could not fit into either the category Agree or Disagree, was undertaken: Total sample Total responses Total: Agree Total: Disagree Total: Yes or No  57 57 44 0 13  (100%) (77%) (0%) (23%)  Because some responses did not fit into the Agree (white) or Disagree (black) categories, some method was needed of determining how to interpret grey answers. It became apparent early on that a clarifying question during an interview like, "So you agree that the claim...?" helped to refocus answers. For questionnaires this was not possible, but in most cases, there was little doubt as to the nature of the answer. Two of the questionnaires contained Yes or No answers. An additional eleven of those interviewed also offered Yes or No answers. It was these thirteen Yes or No answers that proved the most interesting, and will form the basis of much of the next chapter's content. In terms of the groupings by bias 2 , the breakdown was as follows: Table 5 - Responses by Groupings: Facilities  Agree Disagree  VI (24)  PVI (11)  NAVI (22)  Total  20 (83%)  10 (91%)  14 (64%)  44  0  0  0  0  Yes or No  4 (17%)  1 (9%)  8 (36%)  13  Totals  24 (100%)  11 (100%)  22 (100%)  57  68 It is clear that the VI Group and PVI Bias Group have a stronger level of belief in support of the claim of a legacy of facilities than do the NAVI Group. Still, with no persons in disagreement, the results are fairly clearly weighted to the positive side of the question. The critical point to note, though, is that the thirteen who offered Yes or No answers really wanted to rephrase the question. On the whole, they believed that one cannot answer the question in a simple manner. Facilities are a legacy only if certain other conditions are met. Of the thirteen Yes or No responses, eleven referred to operating costs. Of these eleven, seven have lived in a Canada Games community that inherited the facilities after the Games. Their responses were generally more specific, offering examples, and in particular mentioning swimming pools. Also mentioned was the necessity of doing sound feasibility studies before undertaking a facilities construction program. Others had examples of facilities that were built that have fallen into disuse, or have been converted to other uses. The Agree group also offered good examples, and many linked the facilities legacy to a sport development legacy. The following quotations 3 are samples of commentary from the Agree group: Before the Canada Games, there were only a few first class facilities across Canada. With the capital program begun in 1969, national class facilities were being built in smaller communities. The impact was felt most greatly in smaller provinces. 4 Approximately $65 - 70 million dollars have been spent since 1969. Many communities would never have been able to afford these facilities without the Canada Games. 5  69  Some facilities have multiple users, ie. a stadium for track, soccer, rugby, etc. and these new facilities have benefitted the wider population within an area, more than just the sport for which the facility was built. 6 The use of feasibility studies and the availability of capital resources will determine the types of facilities which are constructed and will thereby `shape' the legacy of sport facilities.' Facilities... are used for local recreational programs...and for hosting national events and for training centres for athletic development!' The many millions of dollars put into facility development provide an economic boost...providing benefits for years to come s The Games provided much-needed sport facilities in our area. Some of the smaller sport organizations in particular have benefitted from facilities which would not have come without the Games. 16 We have gone on to host many other competitions. The legacy of the Games has been the ability to host other high level events on the facilities built for the Canada Games.' From a recreational standpoint, the facilities that we built have provided the community with recreational opportunities for the citizens of our area. they have been used for years, and will see many more years of use yet. Our community now sees itself as a place where sport and recreation are part of what we are about. The Canada Games were a catalyst to that way of thinking.' The Agree group supported the belief that the capital budgets from Canada Games have contributed greatly to communities across Canada. However, the Yes or No group felt that it would be simplistic to equate the amount of dollars to the value of the legacy. Some facilities can be said to have had a negative impact on the community, thereby lessening the legacy  70  effect. It was felt that the legacy implications of building new facilities with reference to use after the Games should be in the minds of Host Communities and the governments that fund those facilities. The following comments were offered from the Yes or No group: A key concern is that recreational users have dominated facilities built originally for sport use. 13 Some facilities have fallen into disuse and are no longer functional. 14 The ownership of facilities after Games may be a thorny issue. 15 Allow me to introduce the 'other legacy'...the legacy of debt or `community mortgage'. There have been several facility installations, ie. UCCB arena in Sydney, that have prompted municipalities to increase property taxes, seek debentures and the like to meet new and unanticipated financing needs for Canada Games facilities. That is the other legacy that has gone unnoticed or unpublicized." It is a slow method for the Federal Government to provide facilities. There has not been a lot of coordination between Provincial and Federal governments in planning these facilities. There has been no overall plan in mind to achieve value for the dollars spent. 17 It is difficult to decide which sports should get the funds for facilities. Is it better to consider the total number of potential participants, thereby benefitting the most athletes, or the greatest need for sport development, thereby introducing new sports to the community? By the first principle, sports like hockey, soccer and skiing should get the facilities. Sports like canoeing, archery, biathlon, fencing, and field hockey should get the facilities by the second principle. 18 It has always bothered me...those people who were deciding which facilities we should have...Sport should have been the primary focus, but tourism seemed to guide their thinking more than I cared for: 9 The most important task to complete before facilities are built is to secure good operating agreements for the ongoing operating and maintenance cost for each facility. It may also be important to ensure good use agreements are drafted, agreed to, and signed by all parties so that sport groups will have access to and use of the facilities built for the  71 Games. There have been many facilities built for past Games for which this was not done, and are now used for other purposes. 23 Host Societies and the communities in which they live have planned and constructed facilities with little to no involvement from those who are funding and responsible for sport development: the Federal and Provincial Governments. The thinking behind this absenteeism is that since the community will be responsible for operating and the upkeep of the facilities, the community should plan the facilities which it can most readily support. 21 The facility standards for Canada Games are set by the NSO's and supported by the Federal Government with little reference to local needs and demands. In theory, exemptions and alternate solutions are possible as in the deletion of alpine skiing from the PEI Games, but those who make the decisions are blind to the bigger issues of building facilities too large and expense for smaller communities to support. The best example is the continuing standard of building fifty metre indoor aquatic facilities in communities under one hundred and fifty thousand people. The costs per capita are staggering. But the standard of building these pools is upheld every four years, even as Games are awarded to smaller and smaller communities. The costs now for such an aquatic facility is somewhere between 50% to 100% of the capital funding for a Games. 22 The technical requirement to build a fifty metre pool was problematic for us. The partner funding for facilities for our Games was equal to the cost of the pool. All other facilities had to be built from funds that we raised on our own. How do you plan and construct facilities on funds that you may have in place, and even if they are raised, will be available too late for the time required to design and construct first-class facilities? This is no way to plan a facilities program. 23 One of the problems I see is that the planning of facilities for Games is sometimes done by amateurs who know either a lot about design or a lot about sport, but lack the depth of knowledge and experience necessary to skilfully find the right combination of needed facilities for each community. I know of one large project that was undertaken because the president had an active interest in that sport. 24 The salient points brought out by those with Yes or No answers can be summarized as follows:  72 1.  Operating and maintenance costs must be factors in considering the merit of a facilities legacy.  2.  Adequate planning and input by all partners should occur.  3.  Facilities standards must be reviewed by those responsible for the Canada Games movement on a regular basis with various issues in mind: matching facilities to local environmental conditions such as population size and demographics, climate demands, escalating construction costs, basic needs versus enhanced needs, and other issues relevant to considering how standards are considered in relation to cost-efficiency and matching facilities to community needs.  4.  Good planning for use of the facilities after the Games to ensure they are used for the sport development after the Games.  Further issues and conclusions over the legacy of facilities will be detailed in the next chapter. A Claim of a Legacy of Equipment The second claim put forward the idea that certain equipment purchased or acquired for the Games could be clearly identified within the operating budgets for Host Societies, and that they can be used as evidence for a claim of legacy. Sport Equipment  Sport equipment is the most obvious choice to analyze. The following  73 table displays the budgets for sport equipment for the last few Games:  Table 6.--- Canada Games Sport Equipment Budgets Year  City^  Budget  1985  St. John  $500 000  1987  Cape Breton  $350 000  1989  Saskatoon  $550 000  1991  Charlottetown  $600 000  1993  Kamloops  $709 000  Thousands of items are needed to host the multi-sport competitions of a Canada Games. Many of the items would be too small to be considered any part of a legacy. But many other items would warrant consideration as a legacy for the sporting community. The following table lists some examples of from the sport equipment budget for 1993: Table 7.--- Selected Canada Games Sport Equipment Sport^ Item^  Value ($)  Wrestling^competition mats/scoreclocks ^$ 31 000 Canoeing^48 canoes and kayaks^$130 000 Sailing^Sailboats and sailboards^$190 000 Athletics^Track and field equipment^$145 000  Other expensive equipment for equipment-dependent sports like  74 gymnastics should also be considered. Such equipment is normally beyond the scope of local sport clubs to acquire without substantial fund-raising. Sport equipment is purchased or acquired for the Games within the operating budget. The disbursal of the equipment following a Games follows policies set by Management within the Host Society. The precedent has been to donate the equipment to local clubs or provincial sports governing bodies, provided the Host Society will not close its books with a deficit. In that case, the equipment would be sold to recoup operating losses. Since this has not yet happened, the sport equipment has been disbursed to the defined sport community. One of the interesting issues voiced was over the longevity of use of the equipment. Again, gymnastics equipment, track and field equipment, and boats have a longer period of usefulness, but much of the other equipment purchased for a Games has a one to three year life before needing replacement. Other equipment like ceremonial equipment, office equipment, venue equipment, and whatever else ends up in the Games warehouse following the Games was mentioned by only two of the respondents, who had little to add beyond the mention of possible legacy.  The Responses The question of a legacy of equipment generated far less interest than that of facilities, although most persons interviewed had some thoughts on the issue. All but three persons offered opinions on the survey or in interview with  75 regard to a legacy of sport equipment. The breakdown was as follows: Responses - A Legacy of Equipment Total sample Total responses Total: Agree Total: Disagree Total: Yes or No Total: No response  57 54 31 12 11 3  (100%) (95%) (58%) (22%) (20%) (5%)  Commentary on returned questionnaires tended to be brief, though in interview persons added a little more. Six of the respondents had significant commentary on the issue. Again analysis by groupings was used: Table 8 - Responses by Groupings (Equipment) VI (24)  PVI (11)  NAVI (22)  Total (57)  Agree  14 (63%)  9 (82%)  8 (32%)  31  Disagree  4 (17%)  1 (9%)  7 (32%)  12  1 (9%)  5 (21 %)  11  0  2 (9%)  3  Yes and No  5 (21 %)  No response  1 (4%)  The results clearly show a divided set of opinions on the issue of whether equipment can be claimed as a legacy of the Canada Games. Those who spoke in agreement with the claim often had good examples from specific Games in support of their opinion. It seems that equipment has been disbursed differently, according to the differing policies of individual Games. In some Games, the legacy of equipment was written into the multi-party agreement with specific allocation handed over to the provincial sport associations of that  76 province. In other cases, equipment was allocated to local or regional clubs, institutions, and other area sport groups. Some pertinent comments from interviews and questionnaires from the persons who agreed with the claim of a legacy of sport equipment are the following: Clubs, schools, City Rec programs, universities, and PSO's have all benefitted. The fleet of racing canoes and kayaks from the 1985 Games creates the backbone for New Brunswick programs. 25 The use of feasibility type studies prior to the Games can enable the host society to distribute and utilize Games sport equipment after the completion of the Games in a way that 'enhances' the legacy effect. 26 The legacy of the sport equipment can be more far reaching than just in the city where the Games were held. If distributed accordingly, the equipment can be used by people throughout the province, providing a much broader legacy base. 27 Major fixed equipment such as gymnastics equipment and timing and scoring equipment provides long term benefit for both training and competition. 28 Purchase of equipment encourages the development of a sport which previously may not have existed. 29 A legacy of sport equipment can also be viewed from a facilities perspective, specifically an aquatic facility or a track and field stadium are incomplete without the necessary training and competition equi pm ent. 36 Equipment is particularly important to smaller clubs, that cannot get started because of the financial obstacles of acquiring the necessary equipment. 31 Many sport associations rely upon the rotation of major Games coming to that province as part of their chance to develop a base of needed equipment and other infrastructure support. The Canada Games is part  of that cycle. 32  77 Persons who disagreed with the claim of a legacy of sport equipment did so largely because of two issues. It was strongly expressed by some that because the effect of the legacy was comparatively small, the word "legacy" was being inappropriately used. Second, a sense of the equipment going out to a small group, and not accessible to all lessened the legacy effect to the larger community. A few respondents simply stated that we should not speak of a legacy of sport equipment. A few examples are cited: To my knowledge, not a major legacy. 33 Equipment was spoken of as a legacy, but what I saw was equipment distributed to groups that gladly accepted the equipment, but in the ensuing years I saw no appreciable impact on their sport programming. 34 Sport equipment for the few local groups who used the equipment can't be called a legacy the way facilities or other benefits the Games provided that the whole community shared. 35 Those who answered with Yes or No answers largely focussed on the longevity of the equipment, or defined the equipment as a "minor legacy." The following few examples illustrate this line of thinking: This is a short term legacy. 36 Equipment has a limited life span. Equipment is a way of 'paying off' schools, neighbourhoods, sport, and club commitment to the Games. 37 Expendable equipment has only limited short term value. 38 Not all of the equipment can be considered a legacy. At least half of the equipment that we purchased had little value to the community beyond one or two years.39  78  In some cases, insufficient storage space, inadequate facilities to house the equipment, and local clubs who were not organized sufficiently to arrange the insurance, maintenance, and storage of the equipment led us to bequeath some of the equipment to provincial sport organizations. 4° In general, the majority of the persons interviewed believed that we should speak of a legacy of equipment as one of the notable legacies of the Canada Games. The qualifier often added was that the legacy is short-term. Some noted that the impact on certain sports was great, and was the greatest of the possible list of legacies for that particular group. For example, the legacy of canoes and kayaks left for paddlers in the province of Saskatchewan was noted as the keystone for flatwater racing development for the upcoming decade. Several persons questioned whether we should use the term "legacy" in the same way that we speak of a legacy of facilities. The opinions varied sufficiently to warrant critical re-examination of this concept. The word "legacy" needs to be used more carefully in the context of major Games. Chapter Five will carry on with this line of thinking in more detail. A Claim of a Legacy of Officials It was earlier mentioned that the claim of a legacy of trained officials could be readily supported if numbers of officials were systematically recorded before a Games, and then compared to post-Games numbers. Unfortunately no such study could be found in the literature, nor in Games' reports. In 1989, the author conducted a systematic evaluation of the status of officials in Kamloops. Officials for each of the eighteen summer sports selected  79  for the 1993 Canada Games were counted. In general, the results were that in two sports, softball and soccer, there were significant numbers of trained and certified officials, but in the other sixteen sports, the numbers were small, and insufficient for the needs of the Canada Games. To be counted as an official, the person had to have a current card of certification from the PSO or NSO. The low numbers need some explanation. Many persons had been refereeing, umpiring, or officiating for years, but had never been certified. Other persons had let their certification lapse. If numbers have increased by the fall of 1993, this would offer some evidence that for at least one Games, there was a potential legacy of trained officials. A third phase of the study, say five years after the Games, might provide a level of evidence from which one could argue statements of legacy. Another issue concerning a legacy of officials, is that officials need practice at a high level in order to be upgraded. Each Canada Games attempts to run test events in the year prior to a Canada Games. This offers experience and an opportunity to upgrade. The Games themselves can be used as an evaluation period for upgrading. A general issue concerning officials is that of continuity. Some persons interviewed or surveyed felt that officials graded to the first levels tend to have a high turn-over and burn-out rate. One could question the legacy claim if numbers dwindled to near pre-Games status within a short period of time.  80 The Responses A legacy of officials was answered with most interest by those associated closely or directly employed by the sport system. A frequent point expressed was that almost every sport has a problem of recruiting, maintaining certification, and retaining officials. The attitudes, behaviours, and sport specific "cultural" reactions of athletes, coaches, spectators, and aficionados toward officials tended to dissuade persons from sticking with the sport. Some felt that if a Games could generate more officials within an area, this could be seen as a legacy to the sport system. A second thought pointed out by some was that hosting major competitions depended somewhat upon having a cadre of trained officials within the organizing body. More officials, by this line of reasoning, enhanced sport development in that area. Those who doubted the legacy claim pointed out to the lack of evidence supporting this claim, the lack of infrastructure in support for regional officials, and the "one-time-only effect." This latter item combines with the first two to make an important point. It was felt by some that many officials upgrade, not for the long-term good of the sport or for their own long-term professional development, but as a one-time-only commitment for the good of the two-week event, the Canada Games. A number of persons again questioned the relative value of a legacy of officials compared to other legacy claims. The breakdown of responses were as follows: Total sample^57 Total responses^55  81 Total: Agree Total : Disagree Total: Yes and No Total: no response  39 9 7 2  The division between agreement and disagreement was much clearer with this issue. The four "grey" answers leaned toward the negative, but offered enough of a combination of hope and scepticism to give them their own category. The VI Group was more inclined to agree with the claim, while those in the PVI group, or those in the NAVI group who had lived in a Canada Games host community after a Games had more doubts than others. Table 9. - Responses by Groupings: Officials  Agree  VI (24)  PVI (11)  NAVI (22)  Total (57)  20 (83%)  10 (91%)  9 (41%)  39  Disagree  1 (4%)  0  8 (36%)  9  Yes or No  1 (4%)  1 (9%)  5 (23%)  7  No Opinion  2 (8%)  0  0  2  With thirty-nine of fifty-five persons agreeing that a claim of a legacy of officials was an appropriate claim for the Canada Games, we might be inclined to conclude that the evidence from the survey and interviews leads one to lend support to the majority opinion. But in matters of opinion, it is the questions asked that must be examined first before committing to belief. The nature of the questions posed can yield misleading results. As will be further detailed in the  82 next chapter, it will be argued that questions of legacy are dealt with in too superficial a manner. It has been commonplace to claim that major Games are responsible for legacies, but the underlying assumptions of such claims have not been adequately brought forward. The assumptions with regard to officials is one such example. On the positive side of responses, the following comments illustrate the line of thinking taken by some: Officials...continue to play a leadership role in their sport. There are masses of technical support officials who ... have their interest piqued in that support as a result of the Games competitions.'" I would suggest that the major legacy for officials is the development of their organizational and networking strengths both in the host community, and on a national-interprovincial basis. 42 I can give you one example. We needed over one hundred officials for track and field for our Games. Before the Games we only had a handful, but after the Games, we had a large number of dedicated officials who have continued to support track events in our community. 43 Officials are a key element in developing a high performance sport program in the province. Without high profile events like the Canada Games, we would have trouble attracting numbers of officials, except in the larger cities.'" Most respondents agreed that more officials were present after a Canada Games, and that had a positive legacy for the province. Some respondents felt the claim of legacy was not significant, largely because of the lack of continuity in training, experience, and support following a Games. On the negative side of the claim of a legacy of officials, the following comments show some of the doubts expressed:  83 Officials like equipment have a limited shelf life. A study would be needed to see exactly how many stayed active. My guess is 10 to 20% beyond those who were 'in' already. 46 It would be interesting to see how many lower level officials stay with the sport (e.g., in PEI they certified 50 biathlon level one officials, while they don't even have fifty biathletes in the province. 47 Part of the problem is that the support to develop officials needs to come from the provincial sport organizations and/or the provincial government, and for them to develop large numbers of officials in a smaller community is just not very cost-effective. There is also the problem of support after the Games. Many of the PSO's see it as a short term expense, placing a drain on the current shrinking funding for their organization:18 The legacy effect here is minimal: 45 On the Yes or No side, the majority of doubt echoed those same thoughts expressed by the Disagree group, but still remained somewhat divided in their thinking, noting some of the benefits in specific cases from specific Games. The following quotations exemplify Yes or No answers: Hard to measure and not always a long-lasting legacy. Many people train only for the Games...some do not officiate often enough (after) to maintain their certification. Most are support or minor officials, or `volunteers' with technical functions. The local technical official likely had a start long before the award of the Games, but the Games may have accelerated his/her certification level. 55 The legacy of trained officials is present, but could be much more systematic...a crucial resource is human resources...we need to build much more than we are. 51 It is not wholly clear who is to develop these officials. Sometimes it is left to local organizers to hold the clinics and provide the leadership. In such cases, the ongoing support will unlikely be available after the Gam es. 52  Most respondents agreed that more officials were present after a Canada  84 Games, and that had a positive effect on the area or province. Some respondents felt the claim of legacy was not significant, largely because of the lack of continuity in training, experience, and support following a Games. Of the persons interviewed or surveyed, some felt that we could speak of trained officials as a legacy of the Canada Games, with some wishing to qualify it as a lesser legacy. Four persons spoke of a legacy of trained officials as part of the legacy of increased volunteerism in the community. Dissenting views included the following: a.  No evidence of continuity after the Games.  b.  Infrastructure support after the Games may not be in place.  c.  Many persons volunteer on a one-time-only basis in support of the Canada Games.  d.  The PSO's have inadequate resources to continue to support the upgrading of officials in smaller communities.  e.^The sport system as a whole has too few incentives to continue to interest large numbers of potential officials. In September, 1991, a conference was held in Kamloops entitled a "Multi-Sport Officials' Conference." The goal of the conference was to examine common concerns for officials of all sports. Guest speakers and panels spoke from the perspective of their own sport, and a few from a multi-sport perspective. Some of the conclusions 52 with points relevant to this study were the following:  85 1.  Burnout of officials is a problem for all sports.  2.  The supply of officials formerly came from athletes who had moved to the Masters ranks. With the advent of masters' competitions across most sports, the numbers of available officials was dwindling.  3.  Funding for provincial sport organizations who support officials' development has decreased. Costs have risen.  4.  While some sports provide recompense for officiating at the amateur level, most officials do so out of goodwill, with expenses paid out-of-pocket. It has become expensive to maintain certification. Some of the costs incurred are for courses upgrades, uniforms, travel and accommodation.  5.  Travel incentives are one of the key incentives for officials to continue to upgrade and maintain skill levels. Some sports have an old boys network which allocates assignments. Newer officials have a harder time getting the experience, or the trips.  6.  It is hard for persons in smaller communities to maintain their level of certification.  7.^Many amateur athletes and spectators have not recognized the official's role in maintaining fair play and the integrity of the sport. Many officials are openly criticized and berated. The importance of the role of the official has not been fully supported  86 with active programs for recruitment and reinforcement within some provincial sport organizations, and much less so at the club or association level. If this is the case, it would not be surprising that a legacy of officials would be short-term or questioned by those who cannot agree with a claim of a legacy of officials. A Claim of a Legacy of Community Spirit and Pride Another claim arising in the literature is that there is a legacy of community spirit and pride. This claim may seem self-evident to anyone who has ever attended a Canada Games. Some public opinion polls undertaken by major Games committees like the Calgary Olympics have surveyed residents in Host Communities to track their support for the Games before, during and after the Games (Ritchie and Lyons 1990). Results tended to show a strengthening of community pride and support following a Games. Unfortunately, no comparable study has been undertaken for a Canada Games city. Nevertheless, several respondents pointed out the case of Saskatoon. After hosting the Canada Games in 1971, the community went on to host many national and international events, the Canada Games again in 1989, and, as such, has since gained the nickname the "Volunteer Capital" of Canada. Saint John, New Brunswick, is also often cited as a good example of a community that has significantly increased its community spirit as a result of hosting the Games. Some persons claim a fifteen year span of increased spirit following the conclusion of a major Games.  87 The Responses Total Sample Total responses Total: Agree Total: Disagree Total: Yes and No  57 57 54 0 3  An overwhelming response in support of the claim of an increased community spirit and pride was heard. Of the three Yes or No respondents, their doubts were based on general scepticism of a measure of this spirit and pride or of the longevity of the effect. Table 10 - Responses by Groupings: Community Spirit and Pride  Agree  PVI (11)  NAVI (22)  23  10  21  54  0  0  0  0  1  3  Disagree Yes and No  Total (57)  VI (24)  1  1  This claim of legacy had strong support among all questioned. Pertinent comments include the following: The networks established by volunteers and the realization that they can organize something as big as the Canada Games not only generates visible spirit and pride - but also the capacity to host other significant sports events in the future. 54 An increased self-confidence by community members may lead the community toward new challenges...A sense of community pride and prestige is a rare treasure. 55 The Canada Games give the host community an opportunity to show its people and talents to the rest of Canada and communities always rise to the occasion .56  88 It is a rare event that brings people from all walks of life together to work towards one common goal and even now, volunteers remember this time with fondness and pride. 57 Spirit and pride shines for a while but then wanes after a period of time after the Games. 58 An opportunity to share their culture and heritage creating new pride...brings community leaders closer together to share in a common goal 59 No doubt this is the lasting legacy of all Games, however, even more important is the community network which is developed in partnerships between governments, school, sports, culture, businesses, and volunteers. This network does not dissolve after the Games and it should stand to serve the community's development for years to come. 66 No question this is one of the most important legacies. It is impossible to quantify, but easy to observe if you live within the community before during and after the Games (as I have twice). 61 In Saint John, the Games helped to turn the negative, dark side of the city into positive brightness. 62 One of the persons interviewed claimed that the effect had an average lifespan of fifteen years. The remaining few had reasonable doubts about the longevity of the pride and spirit following the Games. For two of the respondents, it was felt that the larger the community, the less the claim was relevant. Would hosting a Canada Games increase the community spirit and pride in a city like Vancouver? A key problem here is that of measurement. Unless surveys are taken at various times, data in support of such claims cannot be used to support these beliefs.  89  As mentioned earlier, surveys taken in hosting Olympic communities indicate that citizens in the community tend to have increased positive attitudes towards their community as a result of hosting the Olympics. Can the same be said of the Canada Games? Again, for Calgary, a large Canadian city, to host the Olympic Games, the world's most prestigious sport event, can be arguably different from Halifax, a medium-sized Canadian city, hosting a Canada Games, Canada's premier multi-sport event. Can it be inferred that because Calgarians had increased community spirit and pride from 1984 to 1989, communities hosting Canada Games will also have increased community spirit and pride? The case has not yet been made through the use of a wellexecuted study that the Canada Games can improve community spirit and pride. This claim can be said to suffer from bias to the point where all responses could possibly be considered invalid. Only those who have longterm perspective in a community before, during, and after the Games could be said to have sufficient experience to have a qualified opinion. Such a person would likely be a resident of the community. A resident of that community who was a key member of the Games family could fairly be considered to be biased on this matter. Few persons would qualify as unbiased observers with sufficient knowledge of several Host Communities. Most persons who are questioned about the matter have positive words about the effect that hosting a major national event like the Canada Games has  90  on the community. It was treated as a self-evident truth by many. Many persons spoke of increased volunteerism in the community in the same vein as increased spirit and pride. Their reasoning seems to be that continued volunteering and community pride are often linked to positive experiences like being involved with the Canada Games. Claims of a Legacy of Sport Development Many different kinds of claims have been made under the umbrella term "sport development" Different perspectives on regional, provincial, or national legacies as a result of the Canada Games have been offered. The literature indicated that the inception and continuation of the Canada Games movement has accelerated the growth of national sport governing bodies, provincial sport governing bodies, and provincial sport ministries (Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks 1987). Some persons in the Games family also feel that coaching and officiating has been improved because of the high standards expected for Canada Games coaches and officials 64 . For example, by 1993, coaches in the Canada Games are to have a Level Ill technical certification; also, as part of the promotion of female coaches into the higher echelons of coaching responsibility, for each women's team, there must be at least one Level Ill technically certified woman as part of the coaching staff Such expectations have been instrumental in forcing provincial sport organizations to consider upgrading their own coaches. Respondents also felt that some of the lesser developed sports  65  .  91 benefitted from the facilities, personnel development, equipment, competition, management experience, and high profile that the Canada Games offers. The Responses Total Sample Total responses Total: Agree Total: Disagree Total: Yes and No  57 57 53 0 4  Again, there was a strong response in favour of the claim of a legacy of sport development. Those who offered some doubts with regard to the claim did so on the basis of concerns about circularity of reasoning. Was the Canada Games instrumental in developing sport in Canada, or was it an outcome of the development of sport in Canada? Most respondents, though, felt there was a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the Canada Games and various aspects of the development of sport in Canada. Also of particular note was the interpretation of the question by each person with regard to his/her own particular perspective. Some interpreted the question to mean legacy to a community, some to the region or province, some to the nation, some to the sport, and others took a more historical perspective of the Canada Games as an element in the history of Canadian sport.  92 Table 11 - Responses by Groupings: Sport Development  Agree  VI (12)  PVI (11)  NAVI (22)  Total (57)  23  9  21  53  0  0  0  0  2  1  4  Disagree Yes or No  1  Again, strong support for a claim of sport development was heard from those questioned. Comments from respondents offer insights: The Games are the number one vehicle in our province for sport development. It is the lever with which we promote new development, improved focus on training, increased standards for coaches, growth in new regions, (and) the need for provincial-local-regional planning. This occurs every Games, not just when we're hosting. 66 PSO's are often given additional funding for team development programs. That money benefits not just the athletes and coaches, but hundreds of others involved in lead-up for one to three years prior. 67 This of course is the major legacy of the Games...provincial associations use the Canada Games to focus entire developmental programs on, and these may involve up to 5 to 10 times the number of athletes which actually make the final Games squad. 68 The opportunity exists for sport development but only if it is planned for this emphasizing the importance of an established four year cycle...encourages sports to develop a four year athlete development plan. 66 The hosting of a Games may provide the catalyst for a province to develop programs in a new or underdeveloped sport as well as encourage the further development of already well-established sports.  76  New provincial sport governing bodies may develop!' Many units including the Yukon use the Canada Games as their pinnacle  93  of competition. These smaller provinces and territories find it difficult to send athletes to the Olympics, and therefore these (Canada Games) are their "Olympics". 72 The Canada Games became a priority for provinces ...promoting more high performance development. Athletes can be traced going from provincials to Canada Games to international competitions. For many young athletes, it is a pivotal experience." This legacy will hopefully increase the participation by young Native persons in competitive sport in Canada. (He is referring to the inclusion of Native Games and Native involvement in planning for the 1993 Gam esr Another, just as important development is the inclusion in the 1993 Canada Games of some disabled sports.' After the initial Games, each province more fully developed its sport ministry...To compete with distinction, provinces had to develop sport programs...Seeing Games results was an incentive for ministers to increase sport budgets...Grassroots development occurred as Provincial Winter and Summer Games were brought to most provinces...they were modelled initially on the Canada Games." There was agreement that the Canada Games have been instrumental in sport development, particularly at the provincial and regional level. The remaining four persons also believed that the Canada Games supported sport development, but that it was hard to point exactly to which element of sport development could be claimed as a legacy. Two persons had particularly noteworthy comments: What should happen is local base building: school, clubs, sport and recreation should pull together to maximize the opportunity that the Games offers..almost the opposite happens...club people are drained away and exhausted, or go on to higher levels. 77 It is difficult to point to an event like the Canada Games as responsible for any major changes in the sport system. The Canada Games are merely an example of how sport has evolved in this country."  94  The latter two comments have relevance to the issue at hand and will be more thoroughly investigated in chapter five. Other Claims of Legacy All persons who were interviewed, or who responded through a questionnaire, were given the opportunity to offer other reasonable legacy claims. The following claims, in no specific order, were added: 1. Pride in Canada, Canadian youth, and national unity. 2. Increased volunteerism. 3. Development of provincial youth. 4. Economic benefits, particularly in economically-depressed areas. 5. Public awareness, especially from CBC coverage. 6. Political awareness about sport 7. Increased tourism. 8. Public works modernized. 9. Legacy of coaching development. 10. For the home team, personal development. 11. Increase in federal-provincial cost sharing. 12. Cultural showcases. 13. Support for bilingualism. 14. Measurable assets. Of the points mentioned above, there were several who mentioned points numbered one, two, and six.  95 Further Responses Further points made by respondents include the following: 1. To the question- 'Can the term 'legacy' be used in relation to the Canada Games?' That's one of the main reasons they are held.' The word 'legacy' as it relates to the Canada Games is that of long term benefits that are for the most part tangible in nature. The long term effects of the Games are very positive and touch every element of the Host Community. the human development, capital development, and overall spirit of the Games are still in evidence long after the actual two weeks of the events are over. 81 `Legacy' in relation to the Canada Games is a phrase used to sell the hosting of the Games to host municipalities, and others involved with the process. By looking at such areas as facilities, equipment, trust funds, human resources, memories and a unity feeling that I was a part of something positive, unique and successful.' Yes, indeed 'legacy' is the key operative word which must be used by all partners in their Mission statements regarding their rationale for participating in the Games. 83 It is reasonable in our case to use the word 'legacy' because of the widespread agreement that the Games have had a lasting impact in these three areas...1. a community spirit for Saint John, 2. wonderful facilities, 3. a large number of volunteers who can now tackle any large project...The focus is mostly on the community and less on the province. 84 More work needs to be done in providing backup to the kinds of statements that are being made about the Canada Games. ° The term 'legacy' has been used rather loosely with respect to all major Games. It has become part of the standard speech in talking about Games, and could bear some careful consideration of meaning. 86 With the latter comment in mind, Chapter Five will offer conclusions and implications, and summarize the content of the study undertaken, with critical  96 analysis as the chief tool of use.  1. P. Lesaux, Questionnaire response, 1991 (by permission). 2 . Using the three categories established in chapter three.  a All quotations from here forward will be referenced in terms of the three groupings already established: VI, PVI, and NAVI. In adcGtion, notations of employment status are noted, where known. 4. VI, Canada Games Council representative. 5. VI, Federal Government representative. 6. VI, host society representative. 7. VI, provincial government representative. 8. VI, provincial government representative. 9. VI, provincial government representative. 10. VI, host society representative. 11. NAVI, civic recreation director. 12. NAVI, recreation director. 13. VI, chef de mission. 14. VI, Federal government representative. 15. VI, provincial government representative. 16. VI, provincial government representative. 17. NAVI, academic. 18. PVI, PSO administrator. 19. PVI, coach. 20. VI, host society representative. 21. VI, host society representative. 22. VI, host society representative. 23. VI, host society representative. 24. PVI, NSO representative. 25. VI, provincial government staff.  97 26. VI, provincial government staff. 27. VI, host society representative. 28. VI, chef de mission. 29. VI, provincial government and former chef de mission. 30. VI, Canada Games Council representative. 31. VI, host society representative. 32. VI, chef de mission. 33. VI, provincial government. 34. VI, chef de mission. 35. NAVI, official. 36. VI, Federal government 37. VI, provincial government. 38. VI, chef de mission. 39. NAVI, media representative. 40. VI, NSO representative. 41. VI, host society representative. 42. VI, chef de mission. 43. VI, host society representative. 44. VI, host society representative. 45. VI, provincial government representative. 46. VI, chef de mission. 47. PVI, PSO representative. 48. VI, host society representative. 49. VI, federal government representative. 50. NAVI, academic. 51. VI, host society representative. 52. From the author's own notes and the conference minutes. 53. Referred to in interviews with Saskatoon 1989 Canada Games Management during interviews.  98 54. VI, provincial government representative. 55. VI, provincial government representative. 56. VI, host society representative. 57. VI, host society representative. 58. VI, chef de mission. 59. VI, provincial government representative. 60. VI, chef de mission. 61. VI, federal government representative; former host society representative. 62. VI, provincial govemment. 63. John Stothart, General Manager for the Kamloops 1993 Canada Games 64. As noted in a Canada Games Council Sport Committee meeting, January, 1991. 65. Canada Games Council, °Technical Packaged', Ottawa: 1992. 66. VI, provincial government representative. 67. VI, federal government representative. 68. VI, chef de mission. 69. VI, chef de mission. 70. VI, provincial government representative. 71. VI, Canada Games Council. 72. NAVI, coach. 73. NAVI, PSO representative. 74. VI, host society representative. 75. VI, host society representative. 76. VI, Canada Games Council representative. 77. NAVI, academic. 78. PVI, NSO representative. 79. VI, Canada Games Council. 80. VI, host society representative. 81. VI, chef de mission.  99 82. VI, chef de mission. 83. VI, provincial government representative. 84. NAVI, academic. 85. NAVI, academic.  100  CHAPTER FIVE  Summary of Research Problem, Method and Findings Problem The research problem, simply stated, can be summarized in a few questions: 1.  What claims of legacy have been made concerning the Canada Games?  2.  What evidence exists in support of such claims?  3.  Do key persons associated with the Canada Games agree with these claims?  4.  What insights into the subject of the legacies of the Canada Games anf further researchcan be derived from the interviews and surveys? Method The methods used were to first review the literature to discover which  claims were being made. Second, documents from previous Games were examined and reviewed to see if evidence supporting legacy claims could be found. Third, key persons associated with the Canada Games were interviewed in person, by telephone, or were asked to respond to a mailed questionnaire in an attempt to detail their reactions to each claim of legacy. The sample chosen consisted of persons who may have a bias toward the Canada Games, but also consisted of persons who were less likely to be  10 1  biased. In interviews in person and by telephone, respondents were encouraged to state whether they agreed or disagreed with the particular claim of legacy, and to provide a rationale for the opinion. Finally, unexpected responses were followed up with further interviews, enquiries, and research into available materials. Further critical analysis of the findings led to the conclusions found in this chapter. Findings Five claims of legacy are made in the literature: 1.  A legacy of facilities  2.  A legacy of equipment  3.  A legacy of trained officials  4.  A legacy of community pride and spirit  5.^A legacy of sport development Some potential evidence can be found in support of the first two claims. The capital budget for each Canada Games has been used to build new facilities and upgrade existing facilities. Documents prepared by each Host Society and reports by the Federal Government have all listed improvements undertaken since 1967 for Canada Games events. In every province of Canada, we can point to existing facilities built for the Canada Games. Most respondents felt that we can speak of facilities as legacy of the Canada Games. Many pointed out specific examples of facilities built for the Canada Games which are still in operation. A legacy of facilities was the claim  102 most often cited in the literature and also generated the most comment in the interviews. A few respondents, though, believed that we should qualify our statements of legacy to include: 1.  issues regarding the operating and maintenance costs of these facilities,  2.  the appropriateness of funding large facilities in small communities  3.  matching facilities to the needs of the community by means of competent feasibility studies  4.  a re-examination of facility standards to ensure cost-effectiveness  It was felt by some that it is inadequate to list the funds spent on capital improvements, and the projects undertaken, as evidence of a legacy of facilities. The facilities left behind after twenty-five years of Canada Games would be accepted by a majority of persons as evidence of legacy, but a close analysis of the implications of building certain facilities might cause those same persons to have reservations about the claim. The issues regarding on-going operating and maintenance costs for a large facility in a community with a small tax base was not widely understood. The trade-offs required in acquiring these new facilities was best understood by community recreation directors, who spoke of the "burden of costs" associated with aquatics facilities in particular. A portion of the operating budget goes to the purchase of equipment. Some of this has been claimed as a legacy. Sport equipment items like gymnastics equipment, track and field equipment, canoes, kayaks, sailboats,  103 and similar equipment cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, far beyond the reach of local sport clubs and, in many cases, of PSO's. Most persons were of the opinion that we can speak of sport equipment as a legacy, although a few persons questioned the duration of the legacy, suggesting this claim be referred to as a "short-term legacy". It should also be noted that the equipment can only be a legacy if the Host Society decided to give it to some group after the Games. In order to make the budgets balance, a Host Society may choose to sell its assets. Finally, many respondents agreed that the legacy of sport equipment is small in comparison to that of facilities. Little direct evidence can be found for the claims of a human legacy and a sport development legacy. Most persons in the Canada Games family, though, agreed with the latter claim and several went on to add that they were the important legacies of the Canada Games. Some would go so far to say that legacies of sport development and community spirit and pride are the most important legacies of the Canada Games. Respondents to the questionnaire and those persons who were interviewed agreed that there were more officials after a Games. What was questioned was the continuity of commitment and proficiency of these officials following a Games. A problem with implementing an officials development program is that any ongoing commitment for upgrading and supporting local officials must be supported by PSO's within existing budgets. Large numbers of qualified officials in small communities cannot be adequately supported by  104 most PSO's. The strongest support for claims of community spirit and pride came from respondents who were hosts at a community or provincial level. A frequent theme in interviews was how self-evident this claim was: One only needed to visit the community before, during, and then after a Games to see the effect. A few persons questioned the longevity of the effect. A further concern was expressed about our lack of evidence to support the claim. It is not the case that we are unable to measure the effect; it has just never been done for a Canada Games. There was a wide range of specific responses concerning the claim of a legacy of sport development. The respondents believe that the Canada Games has played an important role in sport development on a regional, provincial, and national scale. This claim has been supported in the literature. Difficulties arise when we try to pinpoint the exact relationship between policies, actions, and decisions made around the Canada Games movement, and outcomes in the sport system. There appear to be stronger ties between Sport Canada/Canada Games Council decisions and its effects on NSO's and provincial sport ministries than on other sport groups, and yet most respondents believed that sport development had been enhanced most directly at the regional level. The probable cause for this was the impact of actually hosting the Games in the region; the immediacy of the experience may have a greater effect than programming and policy decisions made at a distant location.  105 A concern was expressed that no formal studies have been done to substantiate what many believe and continue to express - the Canada Games movement has been responsible for a number of legacies that justifies the efforts of various levels of government, sports agencies, and volunteers. Conclusions and Suggested Future Studies When this research was first contemplated, a feature that was striking was the similarity in comments made by successive sport ministries, within Ministry reports, in Host Society reports, and in speeches by advocates of the Canada Games. In chapter two, several examples were given; the content of each text selected contained positive commentary on the benefits of the Canada Games. The notion that the Games leaves a legacy of some sort was a recurring theme throughout much of the literature. From a critical perspective, one might question whether each successive sport minster, sport ministry, Host Society, NSO, and any other agency that deals with the Canada Games over many years, had repeated the conventional wisdom of earlier writers. One question facing any writer concerned with writing a report on the Games would be something like this: What are the benefits of the Games? The only sources of information would be Ministry reports, Canada Games Council reports, Provincial Ministry reports, and Host Society reports. There is very little in the way of professional literature on the Games at all, and almost nothing critical in perspective. Even if the writer were to do an exhaustive search, and uncover some critical aspects to hosting a Games,  106 such as the problems of operating costs for an aquatic centre or the difficulty in maintaining continuity for officials after a Games, nothing has been written with a larger critical analysis. The majority of persons who have written about the Canada Games have had access to material written by government employees or Host Society volunteers or staff, and these persons might be considered sufficiently biased to consider such material contaminated, not objective. Another possible answer to the striking similarity in commentary on the Games could be that each writer has reflected not the conventional wisdom of past writers, but past research. In other words, solid research that could be verified by successive researchers had been undertaken, and since no contrary research had been brought forward, writers were reflecting the state of knowledge in relation to the topic at that time. The problem with this interpretation, as noted earlier, is that there is no evidence of this type of research in the literature. A third interpretation of the problem is that the benefits of the Games are not founded in solid research, but are evident to those who have had a long term commitment and experience with the Games. Two persons interviewed used this line of thinking in extended discussions following up earlier comments. The reasoning behind this line of thinking went as follows: After a few Games one can start to see similarities among Games. Each Games has been different and the benefits received by each community,  10 7  and to the larger community have been different in degree, but there are some elements of commonality among successive Games, like new and improved facilities, improved sport development, and improved community spirit. These similarities are noted, not through scholarly research, but through observation and inference. It should be noted that the same kinds of comments have been made by different persons from different communities over twenty years. Each has recognized the benefits of the Games independently. Consideration should be given to the fact that so many independent persons have all come to similar conclusions, but we should also note that bias may contaminate the weight of those results. It was evident that those with no apparent bias were far more sceptical of claims of legacy than the group who were potentially biased. Furthermore, in the sample of persons surveyed and interviewed, it was somewhat apparent that few persons were aware of the depth of the issues involved in considering a claim of legacy. The few persons who were quite knowledgeable of the pitfalls in making legacy claims were, of course, more sceptical in approach. The preponderance of statements in the literature is also weighted towards acceptance of claims of legacy, in spite of a lack of solid critical review. The claim here is that each writer has observed what is evident: the benefits of the Games is large, and that has been verified by many observers from many communities over a twenty year span. As a line of reasoning, we can note that each writer has started from  108 a point of bias; independent persons with no stake in the Games have been very few. Even if we ignore that bias, there is another level of bias present. The only persons who specialize in writing about Canada Games over a period of time are government employees or sports organization personnel. Their reports have been predominant in the literature available on the topic of the Canada Games. One cannot easily escape this material in any attempt to read about the Canada Games. We might also question whether persons with a long-term relationship to the Games formed these opinions having heard and read such reports early, before direct experience over several Games. It is unlikely that one can be involved for several Games, and withhold opinion through that time, without contamination from earlier writing and other speakers. Either way, one could criticize that line of reasoning as faulted because of a bias. If the benefits of the Games are real, and they are as positive as the majority of persons have observed, then some scholarly research should be done to further examine the validity of that belief. No systematic, wellresearched studies have been completed to verify those beliefs. That, of course, does not mean that the benefits of the Games are not real. The conclusion must be, though, that the benefits of the Games have not been verified through independent studies. This study has examined the claims of legacy made in the literature, and by persons in the Games family. An important point not noted by respondents  10 9  or in the literature, is the following distinction. The word "legacy" is often used to justify why a particular Games is held. A number of persons have used the following reasoning: The reason I got involved in the Games was to provide a legacy to our sport. The facilities, equipment, and sport development are the legacies of the Games after the event.' The problem here is the object of the legacy. An example will help to clarify the point. The 1993 Canada Games wished to host sailing on a nearby lake. A provincial park was on one side of the lake. Technically speaking, it was a good site, with suitable winds and on-shore facilities. Aesthetically, it was a beautiful site, speaking well of the region to tourists, and for television coverage. Financially, the site was attractive because for a relatively low cost, the site could be made ready to host the sailing event. Its only drawback was that the local sailing community called it "No legacy." The line of reasoning used was that since that side of the lake was twenty minutes further to drive, the local club in the host community would not use the site since closer lakes were available. The site would, by this reasoning, therefore be no legacy to the sport. The problem was that another sailing group in a nearby community preferred the park site. It could also be argued that the citizens of the Host Community would prefer the park site since their tax dollars were paying for improvements, and they would prefer the less expensive site so that improvements could be placed in their own community. The relevant PSO supported the use of the lake in general, seeing the development of the sport at  110  that site to the benefit of the larger provincial sailing community. The question to be asked then is, 'Legacy to whom?' Is the legacy for the local sailing group, with a membership of about twenty persons? Or is it to the larger community, with a population of one hundred thousand persons? The same point might be asked of an aquatics centre. For whom is the legacy of the facility? The aquatics community receives the direct benefits, but the taxpayers as a whole pay the operating expenses. It is insufficient to speak of legacies without addressing the feasibility of the cost-effectiveness of each decision. With a legacy of facilities, the investment of the funds must be weighed against the number of potential users, the long-term operating costs, the potential for disuse from over-specialization, the longevity of the facility, and the competing goals of the other partners in the Canada Games. Some persons question whether facilities that leave operating deficits for years after a Games is held can still be called a legacy. The most common cause of operating deficits are when Olympic-sized indoor pools are built in smaller communities. Every decision to allocate funds to a facility, or to equipment, or to any program is at the expense of another program. The decision to build an indoor aquatics centre for a summer games is a six-milliondollar decision to direct a legacy to the aquatics community, with a debt to the other citizens of the community, and at the expense of other potential facilities that could have been built with those funds. A full fledged tennis facility can be -  111  constructed for four percent of the cost of an aquatics centre, with very few operating costs after the Games. With this line of reasoning, twenty-four such facilities can be built for the cost of one aquatics centre. For whom is this a legacy? In such a hypothetical situation, the goals of the aquatics community are met, but the goals of the tennis community are not. Many taxpayers would also argue that their goals have not been met. What about the goals of the other partners - the provincial government representing the provincial sport community and the taxpayers of the province, and the federal government representing a national set of stakeholders? Are their goals being met with a particular decision? The point is that one must not speak merely of a legacy of the Games, but instead a legacy to some particular group. If an aquatics centre is a legacy, then it is a legacy to the aquatics community locally, regionally, provincially, or perhaps nationally, and to recreational users of the facility. As a topic for study, the Canada Games is usually studied as a part of the Canadian sport system as a whole. Because of this, when speaking about "legacy", the focus has largely been national in perspective. But when interviewed, the population spoke mainly about community, regional, or provincial legacies, with little reference to facilities as a whole benefitting the nation. Can we generalize beyond those particular communities in which the facilities were built to a larger sphere? Can the citizens of Canada be said to have benefitted from these facilities? Surely direct benefits are only  112 evident to those persons in the community area, and to the few others from outside who also use the facilities. Indirectly, we might also refer to the specific sport community of the province, and less so to the nation. It seems inappropriate to generalize beyond specific benefits to specific groups. Regional legacies are the topic of such community-oriented reports as host society final reports and impact studies. Such reports have not reached the published stage, and consequently have not been well studied. In examining some of those documents, recurrent themes arise across many Games, over many years. In these, the claims are often numerous and diverse, but usually include facilities, equipment, human legacies, sport development, and sometimes economic impacts. Little work has been done to substantiate these claims. For example, an economic impact study for the 1991 Games was undertaken 2 which concluded that the economic impact of the 1991 Games was fifty million dollars to the Island's economy. And yet studies like The McGill Study of the Economic Impact of the 1976 Olympic Games,1982) 3 have indicated that economic impacts on communities are difficult to measure: The impacts on each of the reference populations...are too varied and diverse to allow any meaningfully totalling of costs for each diverse population, much less a summing of each reference population's benefits. How can we measure the other intangible legacies? If they are unmeasurable, can we still speak meaningfully of legacies of the  113  Canada Games? With facilities and equipment, one can point out a cost for construction and/or purchase, and then, the reasoning goes, one can evaluate the extent of the legacy by using the total funds expended as our measure. This argument, of course, does not account for additional costs after construction and/or purchase. The notion of a "negative legacy" of operating costs seems to be primarily centred on indoor aquatic centres. In 1990, a study was done (Johnson 1990) where indoor fifty metre pools with a diving tank in Canada were examined for annual operating deficits. The average annual operating deficit was found to be in the range of six hundred thousand dollars. Communities are required to match federal and provincial contributions to capital costs, which, for the host, in 1989 were two million dollars. In return, each host community may receive over six million dollars in capital projects. On the face of it, this would appear to be a sound investment. But beyond the capital costs are operating costs and costs of this nature are in perpetuity, with the capital cost contributions from third parties equalled and surpassed by local tax-based expenditures within seven years. Some facilities have even been refitted at great cost just to reduce the operating deficit in the long term. An indoor aquatic centre is a positive legacy only if the community can afford and can justify the dent in civic revenues for years to come. This study made reference to various sources in the literature which consider the Canada Games as a successful institution of federal-provincial  114 cooperation in the development of sport in Canada. These sources list sport development and facilities development as the prime legacies of the Games. Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks (1987) place the Canada Games within the context of the larger goals of the federal government, with particular reference to high performance and socio-economic and political goals, like national unity. Was sport development and facility construction part of these goals? Or were they unintended outcomes of the birth of the Canada Games? The first answer concerning facilities would appear to be somewhat obvious. Some persons believe that high performance can only be achieved by providing domestic facilities of national calibre. By building these facilities across Canada, the goal of improving the performance of Canadians in international circles might be achieved. Some would even say that the Federal Government has used the Canada Games movement to build athletic facilities in each province of Canada. Twelve cities in Canada, in ten provinces, can be said to have a legacy of sport facilities. Two of the respondents questioned whether building large sport facilities in small communities was a sound investment of funds. The line of reasoning used approximated the following: 1.  Large facilities like aquatics centres consume large amounts of capital funding, lessening available funding for smaller projects to meet a wider population base.  2.  Facilities like aquatics centres require large amounts of revenue to  115 balance operating and maintenance losses. 3.  With a smaller population base, small communities cannot generate the revenue necessary to balance the budget. Taxation of the smaller number of citizens is then required to balance the budget. The costs per capita are burdensome.  4.  Therefore building large facilities like aquatics centres in larger communities is more cost-effective. Furthermore, public accountability is better served since the facility will serve a larger number of users.  Such arguments have not been widely expressed, but should be shared as powerful warnings to those who offer facile arguments of legacy, and also bear careful examination by those responsible for policy decisions for the Canada Games. A further problem relates to the term "Canada Games standards". These standards are measures of facilities to which hosts for national competitions should comply. For a softball facility, base line distances, infield areas and materials, fence heights, and lighting standards would all be specified. In many cases, there is a correspondence between the written standard and an improvement that is useful for the community. National level standards, though, may set facilities in small communities that have little correspondence to the needs of the local population. Multi-sport games have constructed a number of technically-correct facilities which are put in place because of these standards,  116 regardless of whether there is a local population to support its ongoing operation and use. A large high-performance facility normally requires a large user-base to support and justify its on-going use. The argument is often given that the sport community will grow into the facility. If we were to accept that argument, the question still remains : Can we call a facility a legacy if the community is not yet ready to use it? In addition, there are specific instances where a facility has fallen into disuse after a Games - such as a baseball facility in New Brunswick and the velodrome in Montreal. A related problem is that the community is often prompted to construct facilities that are not really fundamental to the competition, but enhance the competition. Some of these facilities are useful for high-level competition purposes, or for high-performance training, but are not well-used by any but a few elite athletes, or for hosting. A good example is the construction of a ten metre diving tower. It has been argued that the number of elite athletes who can effectively use this costly improvement in a small community hardly justifies the capital expenditure, nor the ensuing operating costs. As a cost-saving measure, both Saint John and Kamloops chose to build one and three metre board, and a five metre tower, but no ten metre tower. Another questionable legacy claim with facilities relates to upgrading existing facilities. Some venues are upgraded to a level that better suits national competition, but have questionable legacy effect, being short-term, or cosmetic in nature. Venues that are fit-out, that is temporarily converted to  117 Games venues, cannot be called a legacy of the Games in the normal sense of the word. When speaking of legacies of the Canada Games, and facilities are used an example of a legacy, it is important for the user to cite specific examples of a positive legacy. These examples should meet criteria of cost-effectiveness, appropriateness to community needs, effectiveness of use after the Games for an appreciable period of time, and be free of negative impacts on the community. That facility could then more justifiably be referred to as a legacy of a particular Canada Games. The problem, though, is that such examples are used to provide a larger statement of legacies across all Games. In other words, claims have been generalized from a few good examples to include all facilities. Unfortunately, not all facilities fit easily into the legacies argument. Sport development claims are abundant, but a little harder to pigeonhole. Did the Canada Games spur sport development at a national level, or were they both outcomes of larger political and economic forces? It is beyond the scope of this study to provide an in-depth study of this question. It would seem more reasonable, though, to claim that sport development at the provincial level can be said to be a legacy of the Canada Games. If sport associations were begun as that sport became part of the Canada Games program, fairly clear evidence might be said to exist. Such relationships would provide clearer potential evidence of legacy. A potentially fruitful study might come from examining the incorporation of PSO's in each province and  118 comparing their development with the sports chosen for each Games. Equally interesting might be to examine the development of sport ministries and subunits with Canada Games developments. Other legacy claims are more closely related to the Host Communities themselves. For up to five years a city dedicates a considerable amount of its resources to hosting the Games. The reports they write following a Canada Games are the by-product of an immersion program - few might know what the Canada Games does for the Host Community more than those few individuals who prepared the bid, structured the Society, staffed the office, planned for four years, executed the operation, and reflected thereafter. The reports of Host Societies must be considered valuable tools for coming to grips with the notion of legacy. The problems with these reports is that they are largely anecdotal in nature. Aside from the fiduciary function, little data supporting the notion of legacy can be said to reside in these reports. A longitudinal study assessing bid communities in the earliest stages would provide interesting comparative data with which to work, especially if measures could also be applied to that community following a Games. Implications Proponents of the Canada Games movement use the term "legacy" as part of the justification for continuing to hold the Games. Since the early nineteen seventies, legacy claims have been put forward, mostly from governments and Host Societies. Because of the complexity and potential  119  inaccuracy of generalizing across all Games, what those who speak of the Games must do, though, is to more clearly specify, and in some cases, delimit legacy claims, and in particular to indicate which item is claimed as a legacy for whom and for which particular Games. To say, "The Canada Games Tennis Centre built with capital funds from the three partners is a legacy for the sport community of Kamloops", will create far fewer problems of substantiation than to say, "The 1993 Canada Games are responsible for a legacy of facilities in B.C." Too often proponents of the Canada Games have generalized about claims of legacy, and consequently have oversimplified the question of the value of the Canada Games. The problems of over-generalizing about legacies can be applied to all three groups of claims: facilities and equipment, a human legacy, and a sport development legacy. For example, in the case of a claim of a facilities legacy, caution must be shown with the upgrading of facilities since minor upgrades may not be universally accepted as being a legacy. Top dressing a field has limited "legacy" value. Another major caution has already been detailed. A facility that leaves a burden of operating deficits may be questioned for its positive legacy. In the case of a legacy of officials, there is no clear evidence to point to numbers, or of the longevity of the legacy. More work is needed in this area. In the case of a legacy of sport equipment, specific mention of sports should be mentioned, since some sports receive a negligible amount of equipment. A few stopwatches, and some used balls would not constitute strong evidence for legacy. In the cases of sailing,  120 canoeing, gymnastics, and track and field, a clearly visible set of equipment may be present as evidence of legacy. The lifespan of the equipment may also relegate this legacy claim into the realm of a "short-term legacy". Again, it is better to say, "A legacy of gymnastics equipment has been the result of having hosted the 1991 Canada Games," than to claim that sport equipment in general is a legacy. In the case of sport development, anecdotal evidence from key individuals, and within the literature strongly support the notion of a legacy of sport development. The problem, though, is that the claims are numerous. The term "sport development" is actually an umbrella term for several areas: PSO development, formation of government branches, coaching development, club development, high performance, grassroots athlete development, regional networking of sport and recreation groups, sport administrator development, hosting experience, increased funding for sport, and others. Individuals who make legacy claims of sport development need to make more specific claims. In the case of a legacy of community spirit and pride, there seems to be little disagreement that there is this effect. The only caution is the magnitude of the effect. There seems to be strong opinion that in the case of Saint John and St. John's, the effect was strongly positive. Would the same effect be felt in Winnipeg or Hamilton? Some claim that the smaller the community, the more impact the Canada Games has. One piece of wisdom expressed by several persons 3 is that the size of the Games must fit the size of the city. The Olympics fit Calgary. The Canada Games might not be successful in a city the  12 1  size of Vancouver. The event may very well be successful by many standards, but the impact on the community would be slight. Community spirit and pride can only be enhanced if the Canada Games is one of the biggest sport events ever to hit the community. The perceived success of the event may be another factor to consider. / Positive press coverage by the media can enhance the community's perception of an event like the Canada Games, whereas controversy and criticism tends to dampen spirit and pride. Claims of community spirit and pride are supported largely by anecdotal evidence. There has been little attempt to systematically measure the community's perception of a Games. The Olympic Research Group monitored resident's awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of a number of factors related to the Calgary Olympics (Ritchie and Lyons 1989) in a period from 1983 to 1989. A study of this sort to monitor a Canada Games would offer stronger support for claims of community spirit and pride, or do the opposite. The longevity of the effect can also be called into question. Conventional wisdom in the field sets the limit at fifteen years. Numbers like these stem from informal studies done on bigger Games. It seems reasonable to assume that the length of the effect would rely on how important the Games was to that community. Each instance, then, would be different. The effect in Saint John would be different from Winnipeg. An interesting study might result out of such a comparison.  122  Further studies that focussed on collection of data may strengthen the claims of proponents of the Canada Games. For example, Sport Canada is attempting to correct some gender inequities in sport. For upcoming Canada Games, the ratio of female coaches, and their calibre is expected to rise because the Canada Games Council is raising the provincial quotas and certification required. Over a period of time, will claims of legacy arise out of such efforts? Has the Canada Games been instrumental in promoting gender equity? Consistent data collection will be needed to substantiate such claims. It would be quite appropriate for the bodies responsible for the Canada Games to encourage and implement longitudinal data collection over several Games. People in the Games family believe that the Canada Games legacies are real and ongoing. The literature generally supports such beliefs. Systematic, long-term data collection might strengthen legacy claims, and quite possibly the place of the Games in Canadian society. A few individuals questioned the role of the Canada Games in the Canadian sport system: 1.  Is the cost of the Canada Games worth the investment? Can the money be invested more wisely?  2.  Is the capital expenditure program being planned in a costeffective manner?  3.^Have a few sports consumed an out-of-proportion amount of funds at the expense of other sports?  123 4.  Can governments plan for facility construction in a more efficient manner?  5.  What should be the place of the Canada Games within the sport system?  6.  Who should benefit from the potential legacies of each Games?  7.  Are the objectives of the funding partners being met?  8.  Should these objectives be open to public scrutiny?  9.  How important are the Canada Games in comparison to other programs?  10.^Is funding adequate to meet the existing goals and objectives of the Canada Games? Within the most recent policy document on sport from the Federal Government, Sport the Way Ahead, The Report of the Minister's Task Force on Federal Government Sport Policy (Ottawa: May, 1992), the following statement is made at the outset: Hosting has benefited Canadian sport. The legacy includes facilities, technical expertise and an improved sport system. It goes on to state that a re-examination of the cost and benefits of hosting international multi-sport events must be undertaken. Though an entire chapter is dedicated to hosting multi-sport Games, and recommendations are made for future policy, the Canada Games was not part of that recommendation. In fact, in the three hundred and ten page document, the  124 Canada Games receives only a few positive comments in passing. As one of the Federal Government's largest on-going projects, it would seem unnatural that it doesn't seem to receive the same kind of overt critical review which other programs face. The study undertaken here was not designed to cast doubts on the relative worth of the Canada Games. It did, however, question the kind of rhetoric that has been used to justify the Canada Games. The Games are, in the opinion of this researcher, a highly valuable part of the Canadian sport system. Clearer thinking and more prudent commentary on the benefits of the Canada Games would be in the interests of all Canadians.  1. A paraphrase attributed to no one person, but characterizing comments made by a number of persons in discussiions of legacy. 2 . Cited in FAS, Sport the Way Ahead 1992. 3. Stothart, J. in an interview and others.  125  Bibliography Andrews, Ian. "Canada Games Manual." Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1975a. ^. "An Examination of the Administration, Facility Development, and Financing of the 1973 Canada Summer Games." Ottawa: unpublished thesis on microform, 1975b. Borg, W.R. and M. Gall. Educational Research, An Introduction. New York: Longmans, 1979. Brandon Winter Games Society. "Jeux Canada Games, Brandon, Manitoba", unpublished report, Brandon, 1975. Brandon, City of. "Canada Games Sportsplex - Revenues and Operating Costs for 1990, 1991, and 1992." unpublished report, 1992. Broom, E. "A History of Government Involvement in Amateur Sport in Canada." Canadian Symposium on the History of Sport and Physical Education. Vancouver: June 26, 1979. Broom, E. and Baka, R. Canadian Governments and Sport. Ottawa: Capher Sociology of Sport Monograph Series, 1978. Business Institute. "1991 Canada Winter Games - Economic Impact Assessment." unpublished report, Charlottetown: 1990. Campagnolo, lona. Report of the Task Force on Sport for Canadians. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969. ^. Toward a National Policy on Amateur Sport: A Working Paper, Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1977. ^. Partners in Pursuit of Excellence: A National Policy on Amateur Sport. Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1979. ^. Report of the Task Force on Sports for Canadians. Ottawa: Queens Printer, 1969.  126 ^ . "Sportfuture, An Address by the lona Campagnolo to the CNE Sports Day, August 27, 1977."Journal of the Canadian Association of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 44, No. 1. Canada. Bill C-131, An Act to Encourage Fitness and Amateur Sport. Ottawa: 1961. ^ . "Annual Report" Fitness and Amateur Sport Directorate, Ottawa: Department of National Health and Welfare, 1967. ^ . "Annual Report." FAS, 1972. ^. "Annual Report." FAS, 1973. ^ "Annual Report." FAS, 1974. ^ "Annual Report." FAS, 1975. ^. "Annual Report." FAS. 1976. ^. "Annual Report." FAS, 1977. ^. "Annual Report." FAS, 1989. Canada, Minister of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport. Sport: The Way Ahead. The Report of the Minister's Task Force on Federal Sport Policy. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1992. ^ . "Minutes of the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Minister's Conference in Victoria, British Columbia, November 24, 1990." Ottawa: unpublished minutes, 1990. Canada Games Council. "Canada Games Handbook: An Outline of Policies and Organizational Procedures." Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1975. ^ . "Report by the Canada Games Review Committee to the Honorable lona Campagnolo." Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1977. ^ . "Canada Games Handbook." revised edition, Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1985.  127 ^. "Overview of the Canada Games." unpublished report made by the Canada Games Council, Technical Committee, Ottawa: 1990. 1969 Canada Summer Games Society. "Final Report - 1970." unpublished report, Halifax: 1970. 1973 Canada Summer Games Society. "Final Report." unpublished report, Burnaby:1974. Canada Winter Games 1971. "Final Report." unpublished report, Saskatoon: 1971. Cantelon, H. and Richard Gruneau, ed. Sport Culture and the Modern State. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Cape Breton/Nova Scotia Canada Summer Games Society Inc. "Chefs' Manual." unpublished report, Cape Breton: 1988. Danis, Marcel, letter from the Minister of State to the President of the Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society, Feb. 15, 1991, Kamloops: unpublished letter, 1991. Dubin, Charles L., commissioner. Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1990. Drysdale, A. C. "Controversy and the Canada Summer Games." in Recreation Canada, 30 (6), 1972. Francks, C.E.S., and D. Mcintosh. "The Evolution of Federal Government and Policies Toward Sport and Culture in Canada: A Comparison." In Sport and the Sociological Imagination, edited by N. Theberge and P. Donnelly, Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1984. Gairdner, William D. The Trouble with Canada. Toronto: Stoddart Publishing Company, 1990. Galasso, P.J. "The Involvement of the Canadian Federal Government in Sport and Fitness", in Canadian Journal of History of Sport and Physical Education, Vol. III, No. 2, Dec. 1972. Globe and Mail. "The Canada Games." A supplement to the Globe and Mail, Toronto: Friday, October 9, 1992.  128 Halifax Canada Summer Games. "First Canada Summer Games - Final Report." Halifax: unpublished report, 1970. Harvey, Jean and Hart Cantelon, ed. Not Just a Game. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1988. Harvey, J. and R. Proulx. "Sport and the State in Canada." In Not Just a Game. by Jean Harvey and H. Cantelon, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1988. Johnson,Brian, "PERC report - Kamloops 1993 Canada Summer Games Pool Alternatives." Kamloops: unpublished report, 1990. Kamloops 1993 Canada Summer Games Society. "Bid Book." Kamloops: unpublished report, 1989. . "Game Plan." Kamloops: unpublished report, 1990. . "Multi-party Agreement." Kamloops: unpublished contract, 1991. ^, "Kilborn Report - Facilities Evaluation." Kamloops: unpublished report, 1989. Keough, M. and D. Murphy. "Jeux Canada Games '77, St. John's, Newfoundland - a History of the 1977 Jeux Canada Summer Games, August 7 - 19, 1977." St. John's: unpublished report, 1977. King, Frank. Playing the Game. Toronto: ?, 1991. Lethbridge/Southern Alberta Jeux Canada Games Society. "Final Report." Lethbridge: unpublished report, 1975. Macintosh, Donald. "Sport and the Wider Goals of Government." in CAHPER, Vol. 51, No. 7, 1985. ^ . "The Federal Government and the Volunteer Sport Associations." In Not Just a Game by Jean Harvey and H. Cantelon, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1988. Macintosh, D. with T. Bedecki and C.E.S. Francks. Sport and Politics in Canada, Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987. Macintosh, D. and David Wheaton. The Game Planners. Kingston and Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press, 1989.  129 McLaughlin, P. and David McDonald. Jeux Canada Games - The First Decade. Ottawa: Hewson Bridge Ass. Ltd., 1978. Meynaud, J. Sport et Politique. Paris: Payot, 1966. New Westminster/Burnaby 1973 Canada Summer Games Society. "Final Report." Burnaby: unpublished report, 1974. Pooley, John C. and A. V. Webster. "Sport and Politics: Power Play." In CAHPER, Jan.-Feb., 1975. Porter, B. and J. Cole, Chairmen, Sub Committee on Fitness and Amateur Sport. "Amateur Sport: Future Challenges." Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1990. Regan, G. "A Challenge to the Nation: Fitness and Amateur Sport in the '80s." Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1981. Ritchie, J. and Marie Lyons. "Olympulse VI: A Post-Event Assessment of Resident Reaction to the XV Olympic Winter Games." In Journal of Travel Research, Winter 1990. Saint John 1985 Canada Summer Games Society, Inc. "Final Report." Saint John: unpublished report, 1985. . "1977 Canada Summer Games Report." Ottawa: Canada, 1978. ^ ."1985 Jeux Canada Games Aquatics Centre." Saint John: unpublished report, 1992. 1989 Saskatoon Jeux Canada Games Society. "Final Report." Saskatoon: unpublished report, 1989 . ^ . "Kilborn Report - Facilities Evaluation." Saskatoon: unpublished report, 1986. Saskatoon, City of. "Harry Bailey Aquatic Centre - Jeux Canada Games Facility Report." Saskatoon: unpublished report, 1992. Schrodt, B. "Changes in the Governance of Amateur Sport in Canada." In Canadian Journal of History of Sport, Vol. XIV, No. 1, May 1983. Theberge, N. and P. Donnelly, ed. Sport and the Sociological Imagination, Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1984.  130 Thunder Bay 1981 Jeux Canada Summer Games Society. "Policies and Procedures Manual: Finance and Administration.",Thunder Bay: unpublished report, 1981. . "Final Report." Thunder Bay: unpublished report, 1982. Thunder Bay, The Corporation of the City of. "Canada Games Complex." Thunder Bay: unpublished report, 1992. Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. West, J. Fitness, Sport and the Canadian Government. Ottawa: Fitness and Amatuer Sport Branch, 1973.  APPENDIX ONE  131  Canada Games Research Questionnaire The purpose of the study is to determine what meaning we can give to the word "legacy" as it applies to the Canada Games. Operational definition of legacy - something positive that is left behind, much like a bequest. Please answer the following questions as fully as possible: 1. Can the word "legacy" be used in regard to the Canada Games?  2. What claims of legacy can be reasonably made?  3. Writers have made certain claims of legacy. Please respond to each:  a. A legacy of sport facilities ^  b. A legacy of sport equipment ^  132  c. A legacy of trained officials^  d. A legacy of sport development^  e. A legacy of community spirit and pride ^  4. Are there any other claims that could be reasonably made about the legacy of the Canada Games?  133  Name of respondant ^ Position ^  Please mail or fax this response to: Doug Smith, VP (Sport) 1993 Canada Games Society 604 - 374-5617  134 APPENDIX TWO LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED' NAME  POSITION 2  Jack Pelech Andre Gallant Sandy Hickman Richard Oland Tom O'Hara Ted Lawlor Jim Tee Marty Irwin Dr. Eric Broom R.M. Finnerty Noni Heine Bob Secord Dave McNeill Gerry Kerr Rick Lambert Jim Morrell Peter Leasux Dr. C. R. Buchanan Gord Peters Lyle Hayes Catherine Gryba Suzanne Coffey Margaret Tbompsen Vic Brown John Stothart Dr. John Jackson Dr. Roger Jackson Vic Poleschuk Don Johnson Dennis Kujat Charles Bruce  President, Canada Games Council Games Consultant, FAS Director (Sport and Recreation), Newfoundland President, 1985 Canada Games Chef de Mission, Yukon Chef de Mission, Prince Edward Island Chef de Mission, Newfoundland and Labrador City Administrator, City of Saskatoon University of British Columbia Assistant Deputy Minister, Alberta Rec. and Parks Chef de Mission, Alberta former Assistant Deputy Minister, Ontario PEI 1991 Canada Games Society Director, Provincial Rec. Programs, Ontario Chef de Mission, Manitoba Assistant Deputy Minister, New Brunswick President, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency President, Cape Breton 1987 Canada Games Canada Games Council; Director of Finance - FAS Chef de Mission, Saskatchewan Vice President, Saskatchewan 1989 Canada Games Chef de Mission, New Brunswick Recreation Director, Thunder Bay Recreation Director, Brandon General Manager, Kamloops 1993 Canada Games University of Victoria University of Victoria President, Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society Canada Games Council Recreation Director, City of Kamloops Vice President, Kamloops 1993 Canada Games  1. The list is partial, reflecting prominent persons in the 'Games family' who had given permission to be quoted, by virtue of having filled out a questionnaire, or gave verbal confirmation of the wording. 2. Many persons listed here have more than one position relating to the Canada Games.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items