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 CLAIMSByDouglas A. SmithB.A. University of B.C., 1974A THESIS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Faculty of Education, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction)We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMARCH 1993© Douglas A. Smith, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of  Gad.S4v-de j^Ertickii^( evirThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, Canada,r--(^1911DateDE-6 (2/88)iiABSTRACTThe Canada Games is a multi-sport Games with twenty-five years ofhistory, having rotated to every province in Canada, and is now into its secondcycle, that is, now staged in some provinces for a second time. It is asignificant part of the Canadian sport system, each time involving the FederalGovernment, all twelve provincial and territorial governments, a civicgovernment, over one hundred sports organizations across Canada, severallarge corporate enterprises and many smaller businesses, and thousands ofvolunteers, staff, officials, coaches, managers, and athletes. A considerableamount of concentrated effort, resources, and financial support is required tostage a Canada Games every two years.Throughout the history of the Canada Games, numerous claims oflegacy have been made. Such claims are most common in reports fromgovernments and host societies, but are also found in the literature in a varietyof publications. In this study, the literature was analyzed, and it was found thatclaims of legacy fell into five broad categories: facilities, equipment, officials,community spirit and pride, and sport development. Evidence in support ofeach claim was researched. Documentation was available on facilitydevelopment and equipment purchase and disbursal over a period of twentyyears. Little evidence could be found in support of the other claims of a legacy.A population which fulfilled the qualifications of long-term knowledge ofthe Canada Games and the Canadian sport system was chosen to sample. Itiiiwas recognized early that the qualified persons available may be seen to havea vested interest in the Canada Games by virtue of employment or associationwith organizations or governments that have directly or indirectly endorsed theCanada Games. In an effort to reduce problems of bias, persons were alsointerviewed or surveyed from the academic ranks, the media, civic recreation,and individuals, such as coaches and officials. The sample was divided intothree groupings: those with a vested interest (VI), those with a potential vestedinterest (PVI), and those with no apparent vested interest (NAVI).The sample was surveyed by questionnaire or in person over a period ofeighteen months. Each person was asked whether he or she agreed with eachof the five claims of legacy. Respondents were encouraged to elaborate, andto also provide a rationale for each opinion. All interviews were recorded by theauthor as notes. The task of data analysis entailed interpretation of answers aseither agreeing with, or disagreeing with, the claim of legacy. It was found thatmany 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 "Yesor No" answers which also were accompanied with greater elaboration yieldedthe 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 orivthat have encountered problems of operating deficits. Several persons referredto a negative legacy of building Olympic-sized swimming pools in smallerCanadian cities.A claim of a legacy of equipment was supported by some, butquestioned by others. Those who supported the claim generally could cite goodexamples of equipment still in use for the benefit of specific sports in CanadaGames host communities. Those who questioned the claim referred to thelegacy as short term or a less significant legacy.A claim of a legacy of officials also yielded mixed support. Somerespondents strongly agreed, but many questioned the longevity of the effect.A lack of community sport infrastructure to support officials' certification anddevelopment 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 theclaim was self-evident.A claim of a legacy of sport development was also widely supported, butthe few who did question the claim wanted to know more about the meaning ofthe claim. Was the effect local, provincial, or national in scope? Is it a causeand effect relationship? What part of the sport system has seen developmentbecause of the Canada Games? The responses were multiple and varied.The study concluded that legacy claims were made in too general aVmanner, with proponents of the Canada Games often using legacy claims as arationale for continued funding and support. Legacy claims need to made morespecific with particular reference to a specific item and the group benefittingfrom the legacy. In addition, since little evidence exists in support of suchclaims, it would be in the interest of those with ongoing responsibility for theCanada Games to undertake studies which measure the potential legacy effectin several areas. Finally, it was noted that those who write and speak aboutthe Canada Games should be more careful using the legacies argumentbecause generalized claims can be misleading and, at times, lack meaning.TABLE OF CONTENTSTITLE PAGE^ABSTRACT ^iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ^viLIST OF TABLES ^viiCHAPTER ONE ^1Introduction ^1The Canada Games in the Canadian Sport System ^4A Four-Year Cycle ^13Legacies and the Canada Games ^21Investigating the Legacies of the Canada Games ^22Structure of the Study ^24CHAPTER TWO^  26Review of the Literature ^26Scholarly Research ^27Government Publications ^32Other Literature ^33Summary ^37Looking Ahead ^41CHAPTER THREE^  42Method ^42Description of Subjects ^49Methodology - Data Collection ^53Data Analysis ^58CHAPTER FOUR^  61Findings ^61Legacy Claim - Facilities ^61Equipment ^78Claims of a Human Legacy ^78A Claim of Community Spirit and Pride ^86Claims of a Legacy of Sport Development ^90Other Claims of Legacy ^94Further Responses ^94CHAPTER FIVE^  100Summary of Research Problem, Method, and Findings ^100Conclusions and Suggested Future Studies ^105Implications ^121Bibliography ^125Appendix One - Canada Games Research Questionnaire^ 131Appendix Two - List of Persons Interviewed ^134viviiLIST OF TABLESTable^ Page1. Target Group - Data Collection ^512. Capital Budgets from Canada Games, 1985 - 1993 ^603. Summary of Facilities Improvements, Saint John ^614. Summary of Facilities Improvements, Kamloops ^615. Responses by Groupings: Facilities ^656. Canada Games Sport Equipment Budgets ^717. Selected Canada Games Sport Equipment ^718. Responses by Groupings: Equipment ^739. Responses by Groupings: Officials ^7910. Resonses by Groupings: Community Spirit and Pride ^8511. Responses by Groupings: Sport Development ^89CHAPTER ONE^ iIntroduction The Canada Games movement has become firmly entrenched as anintegral part of the amateur sport system in Canada. Every two years, each ofthe provinces and territories in Canada puts together a large contingent ofathletes, coaches, managers, and Mission staff for fifteen days of competition inthe hosting community. A great deal of time, effort, and money is committed byeach provincial or territorial team into putting together the best representativesto compete in the largest, on-going multi-sport games in Canada. As such, theCanada Games has become a significant part of the rotation of sport activity inthe lives of persons in provincial and national sport systems.In the four years preceding each Games, thousands of volunteerscommit long hours of preparation for the upcoming Games. Each hostcommunity recruits a total of about six to seven thousand volunteers for varyingcommitments of time, which range from several years to a only a few days.Each person volunteers time in support of the "causes" - the Canada Gamesand the community itself. Agencies and businesses from both the privatesector 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 andvolunteer labour available to an individual Canada Games.To host a Canada Games at this time requires a budget in the range ofseventeen to twenty-five million dollars, of which at least half is spent onfacilities in the hosting community'. Millions of dollars of private and public2funds are spent in the name of the Canada Games every two years.With the Canada Games so firmly entrenched within the plans of sportorganizations, governments, and communities, and considering all of the time,effort, and funds that are spent in the name of the Canada Games, then itwould be reasonable to expect regular review of the relative value of theCanada Games to Canadians.Some internal review of the Canada Games has been done, althoughlittle or no documentation is available to show the design, methods, and resultsof the study (Canada Games Council 1977). From records that are available, itwould appear that all such reviews have been internal to sport ministries, andsmall in scope. There would appear to be little review available that has beencritical in nature.The purpose of this paper was to begin to examine critically what hasbeen written about the Canada Games. Using critical analysis, statementswere examined, grouped into categories, and summarized. A survey andinterview process of persons who have a strong link to the Canada Gamesmovement was undertaken to further investigate insights into various claims oflegacy made within the literature. A lengthy process of investigation into themeaning and implications of statements of legacy made in the surveys andinterviews has yielded further insights into these claims. Conclusions regardinghow the word "legacy" is used in association with the Canada Games areoffered, with implications for further research added.3When the study was begun, the questions that guided the investigationwere the following:1. From the written record, what claims of value or legacy havebeen made regarding the Canada Games?2. Can these statements be meaningfully reduced to a fewcategories?3. What evidence can be found in support of these claims?4. Do relevant persons from the amateur sport system, governmentbodies, civic representatives, and scholars agree with theseclaims? If not, what insights are offered?5. What are the criteria needed to select a sample of individuals whoare qualified to speak in an informed manner about the CanadaGames movement?6. What is not being printed about the Canada Games, that, in goodconscience, should be?7.^What further research should be carried out with respect to thelegacy of Canada Games?This chapter provides an overview of the Canada Games within theCanadian amateur sport system, delineates the players involved, andsummarizes the four year process applied to a given Games from inception toconclusion.4The 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 thepoint where sport organizations exist at the community, regional, provincial, andnational levels. Organized sport ranges from recreational participation, toorganized developmental programs like coaching, leagues, and camps, toorganized competitive events on a provincial scale, and finally to high-performance competitions and programs on a national or international scale.At the community level, clubs, associations, leagues, societies, individualvolunteers, schools, colleges, universities, and municipal staff organize sport. Itwould be very difficult to find a Canadian community of any size that was notactively involved in organizing some type of sport competition or program. Atthe provincial level, provincial sport organizations (PSOs) are responsible forthe promotion, development, and coordination of their sports. They work inconjunction with registered members and member clubs to further their sports.They are, in part, funded through core grants from provincial governments, orgovernment agencies. At a national level, national sport organizations (NSOs)carry out programs that are nation-wide in focus, including the implementationof high-performance goals for the national and international arena. In addition,there are a number of associations which are organized for goals that bridgemany sports, such as the Canadian Olympic Association, the Sport Federation5of Canada, Canadian Federation of Sport Organizations for the Disabled, theCommonwealth Games Federation, the Canadian Colleges Athletic Association,the Canadian Centre for Drug-free Sport, and many, many more at bothnational and provincial levels. Governments also play a significant role inleadership, funding, and support services to sport at the national, provincial,and municipal levels.Competitions are hosted by local clubs, associations, and other groups inboth large and small communities across Canada. These competitions rangefrom recreational events for local athletes, to events designed to attract highperformance athletes. Each PSO will choose to sanction a number of events inits official calendar of events for that year. Most of these events are againlocally organized with varying levels of support from PSO's, but the norm isminimal involvement from parent organizations. A few competitions areorganized by PSO's, but because of limited resources, they are very reliant onclub and volunteer support. Even at the level of national events, organization isprimarily carried out by hosting clubs and organizations, with technical supportfrom the relevant PSO and NSO.A quite different sort of competition is the phenomenon of multi-sportgames. There are numerous forms of multi-sport Games, from locally-drivenrecreational festivals, to Games at a regional, provincial, national orinternational level. Most of the larger ones are the result of a bid endorsed bya municipal government in an effort to host a Games which are held on an6annual, two year, or four year cycle. These multi-sport competitions aredifferent from other competitions in that they involve several sports stagedconcurrently, government groups are normally more directly involved sinceathletes, coaches, managers, and team staff representing provinces, territories,or even the nation are sent to compete, and governments often have somedirect funding in the staging of the events.At the international level, the most prominent Games that Canadaregularly competes in, and irregularly hosts, are the Olympic Games, theCommonwealth Games, the Pan American Games, and the World UniversityGames. Canada has hosted two Olympics, one Commonwealth Games, a PanAmerican Games, and a World Student Games in recent years.At the national level, the Canada Games are hosted every two years. Ata regional level, such Games as the Western Canada Games, Atlantic CoastGames, and Arctic Games are regularly held. At a provincial level, games areheld on a regular basis, with BC hosting two per year, and most otherprovinces hosting annually or every two years.Many parallels can be drawn between the Olympics and the CanadaGames. This should not be surprising, since when the Canada Games werefirst proposed, they were promoted as a "Canadian Olympics" (McLaughlin, P.and D. McDonald 1978). Both Games stage several sports concurrently, withCanada Games sports mostly "Olympic" in profile. Both Games receiveathletes who are representatives of their country or province. Much of the7same organization, terminology, and precedents can be drawn between the twoGames, enough to support the concept that the Canada Games was somewhatmodelled 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, aCanada Games with approximately a seventeen to twenty-five milliondollar budget, all host roughly the same number of athletes, all establishathletes' villages, feed, transport, accredit, provide security for athletes,all market and advertise the Games, all organize ceremonies, and allintroduce a significant cultural, hospitality, protocol, and organizationalelements that are inherently similar, but quite different in scale. Inparticular, elements like security, hospitality, media broadcasting, andprotocol tend to be much more expensively planned and implemented inlarger Games (Stothart, J., interview by the author, Kamloops: 1992).Because of the infrequency of hosting other major Games in Canada, wecan say that the Canada Games is Canada's largest multi-sport Games hostedon 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 (McLaughlinP. and D. McDonald 1978). The Games arose as a consequence of greaterinvolvement from the Federal Government in amateur sport, in terms of funding,infrastructure development, and in support for sport organizations. Themotivation for the creation of the Canada Games can be arguably linked to thegoals of increasing government support for amateur sport, of improving theperformances of Canadian athletes, and of improving the sport infrastructure8across Canada, and thereby satisfying some , of the global goals of sportministries, NSO's, and other sport bodies at that time:1. The Canada Games movement complements Federal andprovincial programs in the growth of amateur sport in all theprovinces and territories of Canada.2. The Canada Games involves three levels of government in thesupport of sport.3. The Canada Games provides a forum for the best athletes in thecountry, and in doing so, gives these athletes experience in largemulti-sport Games, indirectly preparing them for internationalGames.4. The Games promotes national unity. The Canada Gamesadopted the motto "Unity through Sport" from the outset(Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks 1987; Macintosh 1985).The involvement of the Federal and provincial governments inorganizations such as the Interprovincial Sport Council has led to a steadyformalizing of the goals, objectives, rules, policies, and processes for planningand implementing a Canada Games. The governing body of the CanadaGames, the Canada Games Council, for most of Canada Games history,consisted of representatives of NSO's, government agencies, and appointedvolunteers, but with no paid staff to carry out its goals and objectives. The taskof the Canada Games Council was to oversee the Canada Games movement,9protect the integrity of the Games, similar to the role of the IOC, to providedirection for host communities, and to enforce the goals, objectives, andpolicies 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 itsown right. A president has been appointed, staff have been hired, committeeshave been formed, and the administrative team reports to a Board of Directorson a regular basis.The first Canada Winter Games was held in Quebec City in 1967, inCanada's Centennial year. It was a year of national pride, but it was also ayear when the nation was re-examining its Federal identity in light of events inQuebec (McLaughlin P. and D. McDonald 1978). From that first Games, theCanada Games motto, "Unity through Sport", has lived on to become anobjective, and also has been linked to the marketing of the Games by itsproponents. 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)101981^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 threeCanada 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, witheach province recruiting its own team to compete in an interprovincialcompetition for points and medals. The format was changed by 1971 to lessenthe imbalances between the three large provinces, Ontario, B.C., and Quebec,and the other smaller provinces. Eligibility rules were adjusted to position theCanada Games athletes as the best of the defined age group. These werelargely, though not exclusively, the best junior athletes in the country, asdefined by each NSO. The Canada Games were thus seen as a stepping-stone in the developmental cycles of young athletes, where some would go onto international competition, but most would see the Canada Games as their11"Olympics", that is, the highest level of competition in their careers, or perhapsthe experience that was formative in their decision-making processes withregard to sport in their lives 2 .Funding for the Canada Games seems to have undergone three distinctstages. 3 For the first sets of Games, from 1967 to 1971, budgets weredeveloped as each part of the Games program became defined; they werefunded using a zero-based budget format. In accounting terms, this means thatfunds were allocated only as programs and costs were detailed and approved.In the next stage, from 1971 to 1991, funding formulas were used to determinecost-sharing for the required elements of the Games: capital and operatingprograms. The capital program was designed to provide sport facilities to hostthe high-performance sport competitions. A conscious choice to select smallercommunities to be hosts has also forced a decision to embark on a significantcapital construction program. Many claims of legacy have been tied to thisgoal. The operating budgets are used to actually run the Games. Costs haveescalated with inflation over the years, and operating budgets have increasedaccordingly. The third stage, commencing immediately after the 1991 Gameshas been that of restraint and a shift to a greater role for private sector fund-raising. By comparing capital budgets since 1985, we can see a trend todecrease spending:1985 Saint John $13 500 0001987 Cape Breton $ 9 400 0001989 Saskatoon $ 9 200 0001991 Charlottetown $10 600 000121993^Kamloops^$ 8 500 0004Inflation has been increasing actual costs, but we can see, by comparingthe budgets listed above, that actual spending power, even without indexing thedollar for inflation, has decreased. Furthermore, the core capital program forthe 1993 Games is six million dollars from the three government partners. Theremaining $2.2 million required to build capital works for the 1993 Games hasbeen raised from marketing and fund-raising efforts of the host society itself, ashift in trends for future hosts. The operating budgets of Games in those yearshas been comparable, ranging from six to eight million dollars, but again withthe host society in 1993 contributing a significant part of the $7.6 million total toincrease the standard of these Games to those of earlier times (Kamloops 1993Canada Games Society 1990). The costs of sport equipment, food services,transportation, temporary improvements, medical services, publications,translations, security, communications equipment, and numerous other goodsand services have increased over the last eight years, yet the budgets havedecreased both in real and comparative buying power.The Canada Games will likely undergo more changes in the currenteconomic environment, and with a dedicated staff who will begin to market,promote, and oversee the Canada Games movement, the Canada Games maybe quite a different entity by the year 2001.A Four-Year Cycle The process by which a community becomes a Canada Games host13community, prepares for the Games, and then stages the event isapproximately four years long. These stages can be designated as: pre-bid,bid, host society, the Games , and post-Games.Pre-bidAbout four and a half years from the proposed staging date, the provincethat is next in line to host the Canada Games begins to hold preliminarymeetings with interested host communities to set the stage for bidding. Eachcommunity that has expressed interest is informed of the rules of the bidprocess, and is also asked to prepare for a commitment of financial resourcesthat accompany an official bid. Normally, a letter of intent to bid will besubmitted to the relevant provincial committee.The commitment for funding is the immediate concern for potential hostcommunities. To date, the capital program has been jointly funded by Canada,the host province, and the host community. The funding formula has changedover the twenty-five year history of the Canada Games, with the latest revisionagreed to in 1987. At meetings in that year, and from a series of decisionsafterward, the capital funding program, to be in effect following the 1991Games, was divided as a three way cost-share: two million dollars fromthe Federal government, two million dollars from the host province, and twomillion dollars from the host community (Kamloops 1993 Canada GamesSociety 1992). In comparison, for the 1991 Canada Games, the capitalprogram 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 CanadaWinter Games Society 1991). The 1993 funding formula will be used in 1995 inGrande Prairie, in 1997 in Manitoba, and in 1999 in Newfoundland, unlessgovernments collectively agree to change the funding formula. The capitalprogram is not limited to six million dollars, but the required contribution byeach level of government is established with that funding formula. In 1989, theCity of Kamloops agreed to up its contribution by $1.2 million, and the HostSociety agreed to fund-raise to bring the total to $10.5 million (Kamloops 1993Canada Games Society 1991). The shift in emphasis to volunteers raisingfunds for capital works can be said to be a shift in trends within the CanadaGames movement.The first major question in the pre-bid phase, then is, does the politicalwill exist, to commit two million dollars to the bid? This question should not beasked in isolation, however. Knowing which facilities will be required, whichstandards must be met, and the costs for such improvements, is part of thatdecision-making. Feasibility studies have been carried out by potential hostcommunities in anticipation of hosting. In reality, however, many communitieshave staff do a quick evaluation of what is already in place, then add up what ismissing, evaluate costs based upon similar projects built elsewhere, comparethe total to the six million dollars available, then make recommendations basedupon the preliminary evaluation. A full feasibility study including consultants'fees takes months to complete, and therefore is sometimes not completed prior15to 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 majorhurdle has been passed. The temptation of a two million dollar investment fora six million dollar legacy is often used in the argument over the value ofbidding. Although the municipal government has no obligation for cost-sharingin operating funds, the City may be asked to contribute services and support inmaking the Games successful. Other potential problems in garnering supportfor an official bid are varied in nature, but usually involve gaining the support ofpotential partners. An example of this need for partners stems from questionssuch as, " Where will the athletes' village be located?" Many communities mustgain the support of the college or university system or the school system to beable to bid in a credible fashion. Other groups from which bid communitiesmay need support are local "governments" like Regional Districts, businessgroups, unions, provincial agencies, prominent citizens, and advocacy groups.The support of community groups will also help to determine operatingbudgets. The formula for operating budgets again has varied, but it can bedescribed as a cost sharing formula between the Federal Government, theprovincial government, and the host society's fund-raising efforts. A preliminaryoperating budget is often drawn up in the pre-bid phase. The number ofinterested communities that follow through to submit a full bid varies fromGames to Games, depending upon the province. Some of the determiningconsiderations are the size of the province, the number of eligible cities (by16sizes) and the predisposition of the relevant provincial government to considersupporting a particular city or region because of economic development orother 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 inFrank King's 1991 book Plavinq the Game. He, and others before him, haveindicated that, in order to win the community's support, one has to haveanswers for the vocal opposition with regard to funding, facilities planning, andthe gaining of the support of partner groups.Bid PhaseOnce a community has cleared potential obstacles of funding andsupport, then it can enter into the bid phase. The hosting province sets adeadline and format for submissions of interest. From those submissions, theprovincial government announces which communities are in the running andschedules the activities to be undertaken in the selection process.In the case of the 1993 Canada Games selection process, of more thantwenty communities that expressed interest and attended meetings, only five infact entered the bid phase. One of the factors rarely mentioned is thecommunity's perception of how good its chances are. Various factors such aswho else is bidding, the political dynamics of the region, and conflictingcommunity projects reduce the numbers who actually commit to the next phase.It can work much differently in other provinces. For the 1997 Games, only one17community, Brandon, submitted an application by the established deadline.Winnipeg was chosen as the Canadian bid city for the 1999 Pan AmericanGames and, as such, withdrew its expression of interest. For the 1999 CanadaWinter Games, at this time, the Newfoundland sport minister has indicated inadvance that, in his opinion, only one community, Cornerbrook, will be in therunning.Canada Games Council works with the government partners and sportorganizations to establish and select a Site Selection Committee. TheCommittees' responsibilities are to set up an evaluation process, communicateand assist the communities to be effectively evaluated, carry out theevaluation, 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 fromCanada Games Council.During the bid phase for major multi-sport events, two officialrequirements are normally included. The first task is the preparation,completion, and timely submission of a bid book. The primary function of a bidbook is to clearly delineate the merits of the host community's bid, detailingoperational issues, touting the community's ability to host, highlighting existingfacilities and venues, and also extending the vision of what the Gamesexperience will be for participants and visitors. The bid book allows the siteselection committee to better acquaint itself with the potential host community's18plans. In recent years, bid books have become more elaborate throughcompetition and by precedent. The bid book, the costs of administering a bidcommittee, and staging a bid day all have costs, and each host communitymust 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. Thepresent Canada Games selection process allows the potential host communityone day to host, entertain, and impress the Site Selection Committee. This dayhas no preset format, but would normally include site tours of facilities, theathletes' village, operations centres, presentations from various groups, andexamples of the culinary, entertainment, and hospitality and tourism sectors ofthe community. The bid committee of the potential host community will try toconvince the Site Selection Committee to decide in its favour. Bid days varygreatly in style, amount of effort, and the messages conveyed, but again thetrend is toward upscale, high-energy effort. 6It would be remiss to forget the part of lobbying, winning friends andpartners, and all the other activities that are part of a successful bid. Thebusiness practices necessary to win bids in the private and public sectors arealso a part of a successful effort for any community's bid phase.After all bid books and bid-day efforts are concluded, the Site SelectionCommittee deliberates, and then makes a recommendation to the FederalMinister of Sport. The recommendations are not made public, and the bidcommunities are not supposed to know which community received the highest19ranking, although it is typical that in the inner circles of the sport communityunofficial standings are well-known. The Ministry may choose a community notranked first as was done for the 1994 Commonwealth Games, but since therecommendations are not public, it is not publicly known whether the Ministryfollowed the recommendations or not. From conversations the author had witha Canada Games Council Site Selection Committee representative, it wouldappear that the Ministry at that time, under the MinisterJean Charest, followedthe recommendations of the committee in choosing the 1993 Canada Gameshost community. It is unknown what happened with earlier choices. Becausethere is a delay of one to two months before a selection is announced, it wouldalso 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 tolobby, win friends, and seek the support of IOC members. Similarly, withCanada Games bids, communities may choose to continue to influence thedecision, using the above-mentioned practices. The public announcement bythe Federal Minister of Sport of the Federal Governments' choice of award isthe final part of the bid phase.Host Society PhaseWinning the bid to host the next Canada Games is the start of a four-yearprocess of preparation for a two-week event. The chosen host community isobliged to initiate the formation of an incorporated' Host Society, which will beresponsible, in collaboration with defined and yet-to-be defined partners, for the20planning and execution of the Canada Games. Recruitment for the Society withits appointed officers - president, vice-president(s), secretary, treasurer, andBoard of Directors - is the first order of business. Some of the same membersof the bid committee may choose ,or be appointed, to be part of the HostSociety, 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, negotiatingagreements, implementing the capital construction program, communicatingplans, advertising, promoting and marketing, fund-raising, lobbying, recruitingvolunteers, and all of the other myriad tasks to be undertaken in preparing for aCanada Games.The role of a Host Society in organizing a Games has been handled wellby other writers in the form of final reports, although much of it is inunpublished format that is not necessarily useable by other Host Societies 8. Itis sufficient for the purposes of this chapter to say that the four-year preparationphase involves long hours from many volunteers and staff, with many hurdles toclear before planning can be translated into execution.Games EventsThe Canada Games itself is held over fifteen days. The athletes arrivelate on a Friday night from every province of Canada. Their first day'sexperience is that of the athletes' village - accommodation, services,21entertainment, feeding, and meeting participants from other areas. Practicesessions and orientations precede the Canada Games Opening Ceremonies,which include all the officials, athletes, coaches, managers, and team staff in atwo hour ceremony that is traditional and expected of a major Games. The firstweek features half of the sport events and half of the athletes. On the Saturdayafter the completion of week one competitions, the first group of athletes depart,and the second week athletes arrive for a second week of competition. Aclosing ceremonies concludes the activities, after which the athletes depart, thevolunteers return to their everyday lives, and the sport community thinks aheadto the next Games.Post GamesThe Host Society normally takes from six months to a year to concludeits business, which includes budget resolution, asset inventory and disbursal,reporting, and many other tasks. The Host Society is then disbanded, and theHost Community has officially concluded its role with the Canada Games.What remains are the facilities, and other legacies, which the remainder of thispaper will attempt to bring into focus.Legacies and the Canada Games As early as the pre-bid phase, the word "legacy" is used in publicdocuments and public addresses as part of the rationale for hosting a Games.The argument used is the following: that, because a major Games leaves avariety of legacies, it will benefit the citizens of the area, and therefore has22extrinsic worth. This sort of reasoning can be found in publications rangingfrom newspapers, to government reports, to Host Society promotions, and evento scholarly works dealing with Canadian sport. The following examples aretaken from a variety of sources as partial evidence that claims of legacy aremade by the Federal Government, Olympic Games organizers, Canada Gamesspokespersons, and journalists, among others:Hosting has benefited Canadian sport. The legacy includes facilities,technical expertise, and an improved sport system (Canada , Fitness andAmateur Sport 1992).In our preparations for the Olympic Games in Calgary, we spent a greatdeal of time explaining to the citizens of Calgary why we should host theGames. 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 manyyears...Supporting the Olympic Games in Calgary would be the bestthing to be ever done by Calgarians (King, Frank. Vancouver: address toSport BC Symposium 1991).Awarding the Games to Kamloops would allow the City to add a majorprovincial aquatic facility, a needed rowing and canoeing complex, andan improved sport infrastructure. This would be an expression of theoriginal concept of the Canada Games - to present the sportdevelopment opportunity that we could not other wise expect (Kamloops1993 Canada Games Bid Committee 1989).Apart from the legacies of new and improved facilities, the training andupgrading of officials, and the experience gained by thousands of peoplewithin a community in organizing a major cultural event, there is anotherlegacy, perhaps just as important. Hosting a Canada Games seems todraw a community or region together in a common cause to encourageyoung athletes to test their skills and courage in competition and learnabout themselves, their neighbours, and their country (McLaughlin, P.and D. McDonald 1978).The notion that major Games have value because of their legacies is23pervasive in literature pertaining to Canadian sport. The Canada Games isonly one of the many major Games hosted in Canada, but it is unique in that itwas born in Canada, designed, planned, and executed by and for Canadians,and is a significant element of the Canadian sport system. The argument thatthe Canada Games is a valuable part of the Canadian sport system is based, atleast in part, upon the assumption that legacies are a result of hosting theCanada Games. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine thatassumption.Investigating the Legacies of the Canada Games Some of the preliminary questions that were pursued at the outset of thestudy were the following:1. Who has written on the topic of the Canada Games? What hasbeen written?2. Is the legacies argument pervasive in the literature? What typesof claims have been made? Who has made them?3. What claims are the most common?4. What evidence is offered in support of such claims? What othersources 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, thefollowing objectives were set:1.^To accurately document how the notion of legacies has been used24with reference to the Canada Games.2. To analyze and determine different categories of legacy claimsused across all available documents.3. To further investigate meanings of statements made aboutlegacies.4. To find supporting evidence for legacy statements, if available.5. To provide contextual and comparative analysis of how the notionof legacies have been used.6. To determine who is qualified to speak knowledgeably on thetopic.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 StudyChapter Two contains a review of the literature which covers thescholarly record, but also includes many unpublished reports. Chapter Threeexplains the methods used in the study, including a description of the samplepopulation, data collection methods and data analysis methods. Chapter Fourreports on the basic findings of the study. In Chapter Five, conclusions aredetailed for the reader. Implications for further research are offered before the25final summary, which concludes the study.1. These figures can be traced by comparing budgets found in final reports from host societies, as listed in thebibliography.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 finalreports 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-PartyAgreement5. Although there is no minimum size prescribed, there is a threshold of limitations on available facilities with which tohost 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 norequirement to incorporate as a Society.8. Statements from numerous key volunteers from the 1989, 1991, and 1993 Games have expressed this as a criticismof host society final reports. Canada Games Council has recognized a need to revise the format and content of Gamesreports.26CHAPTER TWOIn Chapter One, the Canada Games was described as an ongoing multi-sport games, insights were offered into the four year cycle for an individualCanada Games, and the problem to be investigated was briefly stated. ChapterTwo reviews the literature, summarizing what has been written in scholarlyworks, in government publications, in official reports, and within variousmaterials which will be categorized as other literature. In looking at thecollective opinion within journals, reports, government publications, and less so,but still present in scholarly works, it can be reasonably argued, at the veryleast by the number of occurrences of like statements, that the notion that theCanada Games is responsible for a number of positive legacies has widelybeen stated and accepted as conventional wisdom. Research undertaken forthis 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 tothese claims?4. What meanings can be attached to these claims?Review of the LiteratureThe review of the literature is divided into three sections:a. Review of Scholarly Researchb. Government Publicationsc. Other Literature27Scholarly Research The Canada Games as a topic for research has been given lessattention than larger Games such as the Olympics and the CommonwealthGames. Major Games have received the attention of researchers interested ina variety of issues, including topics in sport science, sports medicine, coachingtheory, sociology of sport, ethics in sport, administration of operational concernssuch as media relations, volunteers, transportation, medical services, dopingcontrol, athletes' village, food services, security, communications, use oftechnology, financing, marketing, public relations, ceremonies, protocol, andsport programming, and also many topics in the sport-politics debate.Studies dealing with the Canada Games are infrequent. Literaturepertinent to the questions asked in Chapter One most frequently comes fromwriters who are examining the sport system in Canada as a whole. TheCanada Games are usually seen as an example of the increasing involvementby the Federal Government in amateur sport.The first Canada Games was held in 1967, though the seeds of interestin holding a "Canadian Olympics" dated back as early as 1924, but with littleinterest from the Federal Government to fund such an enterprise until the1960's, little more than talk occurred (McLaughlin, P. and D. McDonald 1978).The Federal Government's first direct involvement in the funding and regulationof 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 was28questioned, and the Act was seen as one way to publicly address the issue.The waning performances of Canadian athletes in multi-sport Games and ininternational competitions was another concern to be addressed by the FederalGovernment's intervention. Over the next nine years, the funding and supportfor the national sports governing bodies (NSO's) increased, and it was in thiscontext that the Canada Games was born.Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks (1989) suggest that Federal programs insport have been examined in three ways:1. Studies that trace the Federal Government's involvement in sportsince the passage of the FAS Act, and that have followed theinteractions of persons and groups central to the program inquestion.2. Studies in sport sociology that attempt to analyze broadly theinteractions of sport and Canadian life in general.3.^Studies by the authors which examine the relationship betweenthe Federal Government's sport initiatives and its wider socio-political goals.Following this argument, it could then be argued that the Canada Gamesis usually discussed in the context of numbers one and three above.Meynaud (1966) proposes three major motivators for the state tointervene in the area of sport: safeguarding of public order, improving ofphysical fitness, and national prestige or pride.29Harvey and Proulx (1988) state that the initiatives from the Federal andprovincial governments in sport are linked to the development of the welfarestate through programs to reduce social inequalities and promote fitness, and tothe promotion of nationalism.Macintosh (1985) similarly argues that the Federal Government has usedsport in two major ways: to promote national unity, and to change the lifestylesof Canadians.Macintosh, Bedecki and Franks (1987) observe that during the timewhen the Canada Games were first being organized, there was a national unitycrisis in Canada, with most of the attention centred in Quebec, following theQuiet Revolution. The Canada Games was first held in Quebec City, inCanada's Centennial Year. The motto for the Games was, and still is, "Unitythrough Sport". Government leaders were seen as valuing sport as a politicalmeans to counteract divisive and separatist forces.Broom and Baka (1978) and West (1973) suggest that, by 1971, theFederal Government was largely funding programs that attained a higherdegree of visibility for its involvement with sport. The Canada Games was onesuch program; it was enhanced by being a good example of cooperationbetween 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 dominatethe implementation of sport. At the national level, the influence of politics on30sport 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 largestinitiatives in support of amateur sport, can also seen as a vehicle to developathletes to the international level, where these persons represent their nation inan international theatre (Campagnolo 1979).Schrodt (1983), Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks (1987), and Macintosh(1988) suggest that the institution of the Canada Games has stimulated thedevelopment of provincial organizations that support amateur sport. Thecompetition is of an interprovincial team format, with significant administrativeand coordinating roles given to the branch within the government that dealswith recreation and sport. Some of the provinces have departments to dealwith recreation and culture, but less in the way of sport. The necessity ofstaffing, selecting, transporting, and providing for a provincial team every twoyears was a contributing factor in expanding the scope of the provincial sportministries. Provincial governments also seem to have been more interested insport 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 coresports in the Canada Games program is that at least seven provinces havewell-established provincial sport organizations (PSOs) for that sport. ThesePSOs, in turn, helped to organize and carry out the programs for their sport,31which in theory, furthers programs set out by NSOs, and thereby increasedsport development and also the funding from the Federal Government (Schrodt1983).One of the keys in sport development is to have technically sound, high-performance training and competition centres. The choice of which city getsfederally funded centres is problematic. Funding from the Federal Governmentfor the building of sport facilities has largely been allocated to the Olympics,Pan American Games, Commonwealth Games, and the Canada Games, withvery few exceptions. The Canada Games have been seen as a way to havethe provinces share in the costs of building new sports facilities for Canadianathletes. Those within the sport system have sometimes suggested that thebuilding of new facilities is a justification in itself for assuming the financialburden of the Games.A negative reflection on sport facilities construction is that some of thefacilities built have done little to enhance the performances of elite athletes(Canada, FAS, Sport Canada Hosting Policy'). Broom e has questioned thepractice of building high-performance facilities in smaller cities, away fromlarger populations of high-performance athletes. Greater numbers of athletesproduce more user revenues, reducing operating costs; also supportingcoaches and programs which further enhance both developmental and high-performance sport objectives.The on-going operating costs of certain facilities has proven to be a32difficulty for some host communities (Broom 1991; Macintosh, Bedecki, Franks1987). Aquatics facilities, in particular, have left a burden of operatingexpenses for Canadian cities that have been former Canada Summer Gameshosts. Facilities in the cities of St. John's and New Westminster are noteworthycases where operating deficits required further capital or operating dollars toensure continued use.The Federal and provincial governments have established trust fundsthat will provide operating funds for facilities in Calgary built for the 1988Olympic Games, and in Victoria, for the Commonwealth Games in 1994.Similar facilities constructed for the Canada Games, situated in smallercommunities, with similar operating costs, are being built without trust funds tooffset operating costs.In summary, it is noteworthy that very little interest has been shown inthe Canada Games as a topic for investigation. References to the CanadaGames are found within scholarly works, but the extent of treatment has beenminimal and infrequent.Government Publications Government publications have usually one of two formats: annualreviews written by Ministry staff, and reports from a variety of sources such asMinistries, often as a prelude to policy, findings of a task force or reviewcommittee, and other reports from other non-sport Ministries, branches,divisions, or committees within the Federal or provincial governments. The33following are selected examples representative of Federal Governmentcomments on the Canada Games:The (Canada) Games are an excellent unifying force; they createoutstanding facilities and stimulate provincial sports governing bodies.Finally, they are a good example of Federal and Provincial, public andprivate cooperation in achieving a desired end (Canada, Report of theTask Force on Sports for Canadians, 1969).Due to the Games, thousands more athletes are now participating inlocal, regional, and provincial competitive events and, as well each hostsite has experienced almost total community involvement, resulting in alegacy 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 significantfactors in the development of athletic talent in this country. Beyond thepurely competitive value of the Games are the less tangible but equallyimportant legacies of mutual understanding and cooperation amongparticipants, organizers and governments, of new and upgraded facilitieswhich remain for the benefit of an entire community and civic pride withinhost communities (Campagnolo, I. FAS Report, 1977-1978, 1978).The Canada Games has been on of the most effective nationalprograms...The Games have led the provinces to organize provincialteams and have much-needed facilities in smaller communities, whilefostering an enormous...public awareness of sport (Campagnolo, I.1978).It is clear even from these few examples that these Federal Governmentdocuments reveal a belief in a legacy justification for the Canada Games.Furthermore, it is striking how little the statements on legacies of the CanadaGames have changed over the years.Other Literature At the time of the writing of this study, the one full length book on theCanada Games is called Jeux Canada Games: The First Decade, written by34McLaughlin and McDonald (1978). It was funded by Lotto Canada in acooperative venture with FAS. It contains a narrative of the first six CanadaGames. In terms of the legacies of the Canada Games, the followingsummarizes the pertinent content of the book:Apart from the legacies of new and improved facilities, the training andupgrading of officials, and the experience gained by thousands of peoplewithin a community in organizing a major cultural event, there is anotherlegacy, perhaps just as important. Hosting a Canada Games seems todraw a community or region together in a common cause to encourageyoung athletes to test their skills and courage in competition and learnabout themselves, their neighbours, and their country.The Canada Games Council, the organization responsible for theCanada 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 togain new and upgraded facilities, promote increased participation andinvolvement in sport, recruit and train volunteers for community sportprograms, develop a legacy for ongoing sport development, generatenew sources of human and financial resources within the community,and by virtue of all the foregoing, enhance local pride and communityspirit (Canada Games Council 1990).Host SocietiesHost Societies arise from the bid process. Once a community hasdecided to bid for a Canada Games, a bid committee is formed. The bidconsists of an official application, a bid document which indicates plans forfunding, details of venue sites, the athletes' village, transportation, and generalGames' operations and presentations to a selection committee. The final stageis a one day visit from the Canada Games Council Site Evaluation Team. Onthat day, the bid committee has the attention of those who will recommend35communities to the Federal Minister of Sport. The final choice belongs to theMinister, in consultation with other factions within the Federal Government. Thecommunity that is awarded the Games becomes a host community. It is theresponsibility of the host community to form a host society.The host society has the responsibility of organizing and conducting theGames, which includes building and upgrading facilities, training volunteers, andhandling all aspects of the budget, in conjunction with its partners: the hostcommunity, the province, and the Federal Government, and perhaps others.Host Societies are a group of volunteers and staff that work together forfour and a half years. Additional staff are hired, and thousands of volunteersmake the event happen. In that period of time, the leadership of the hostsociety comes to know the Canada Games intimately. Official documentsproduced by the host societies offer further insights into the notion of legacies.Examining documents produced by host societies reveals some of thesame kinds of statements:1. Burnaby/New Westminster 1973 Canada Games:Facility construction and renovation were important parts of the residualbenefits New westminster/Burnaby have received for hosting theGames...In preparation for the Games, 15 of the 16 sports receiveddirect assistance in improved or new playing facilities.The Games left a large surplus after having paid for the many permanentfacilities 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 theSociety'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.36The Games left a legacy of new and improved facilities....The Gamesalso left highly-trained personnel... (New Westminster/Burnaby CanadaGames Society 1974).One of the best statements of what legacies might be involved comesfrom the City of Lethbridge:2. Lethbridge/Southern Alberta 1975 Canada Games:The benefits which were actually accrued by Lethbridge/Southern Albertafrom the privilege of hosting the 1975 Canada Winter Games cannot beoverstated. The Canada Games Sportsplex; Canada's only world calibreice speedskating oval; the Stan Siwik swimming pool; the upgrading of26 different recreational facilities in Lethbridge and the surroundingcommunities; and the distribution of the Canada Games sport equipmentare some of the visible benefits. Perhaps even more important are thediscovery and development of a wealth of talent in our community,including some 3000 Games volunteers; the wealth of national andregional 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 thatwe have the ability to undertake substantial community projects and todo them well; the stimulation of interest in personal physical fitness,personal involvement, and the advancement of amateur sport as animportant aspect of the cultural life of our area---these are among theimportant 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 andleave various sustaining and positive legacies for the people and thecommunities of Canada (Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society 1990).The assumption here is that the Canada Games is expected to leavelegacies of some sort.The LegacyAwarding the Games to Kamloops would allow the city to add a majorprovincial aquatic facility, a needed rowing and canoeing complex, andan improved sporting infrastructure. This would be an expression of theoriginal concept of the Canada Games - to present the sport37development opportunity that we could not otherwise expect...Thedevelopment of officials will also receive a special boost from theGames. The Games will be the focal point of sport development in theInterior throughout the first half of the 90's, and the benefits will beapparent for decades to come (Kamloops 1993 Canada Games Society1989).SummaryMany statements and claims of legacy are made by scholars,government officials, and Games family 3 leaders. Little evidence is offered insupport of such claims. The exception to this point would be the facilitieslegacy, for which listings of capital works and details of capital budgets arereadily available and are referred to with relative frequency. The assumptionthat capital works are a legacy is examined more thoroughly in later chapters.The claims of legacy are remarkably similar in the literature and pervadereports, scholarly writing, government official documents, and host societydocuments. In fact, many of the same key phrases are used. One might askwhether those who have produced documents have repeated the words of theirpredecessors, or whether they have come to the same conclusionsindependently. Part of the purpose of this study is to critically examine the oft-repeated conventional wisdom about the positive legacies of continuing to hostmulti-sport Games like the Canada Games.Although there are many different statements of legacy associated withthe Canada Games, this study will use five broad groupings which reflect themost frequently expressed claims:1. A legacy of facilities382. A legacy of equipment3. A legacy of officials4. A legacy of community spirit and pride5. A legacy of sport developmentA brief overview of the kinds of meaning attributed to these claims willhelp set the stage for late chapters.Legacy of FacilitiesThe claim seems to be that the legacy of new and improved facilities is aresult of the capital expenditures undertaken for each Games. The host societyconstructs facilities to meet the technical requirements of Canada Gamescompetitions. Because capital works are permanent, and can be enjoyed bymany citizens over many years, facilities are usually the first and mostimportant legacy referred to in any serious statement of legacies of a multi-sportGames.A Legacy of EquipmentTo a lesser degree, equipment that is purchased or acquired for aGames has been referred to as a legacy, as long as it stays with thecommunity. Sport equipment has been identified as one example of anequipment legacy.A Legacy of OfficialsThe claim that a Games will leave a human legacy has been used onmany occasions. More officials and better qualified officials is claimed to be a39beneficial result of having hosted a Canada Games. Certainly a hostcommunity has to train a large number of technical officials and perhaps theexperience of officiating at a national championships will be instrumental inimproving the chances that each official will continue to officiate in the hostcommunity.A Legacy of Community Spirit and PrideThe claim that a community will have increased community spirit andpride after hosting a successful Games has been widely stated and to manywould seem be self-evident, perhaps even definitive of what it means to host amajor Games. One of the stated goals is to show off the community, hosting toa level to which pride will be an outcome. Certainly no one attempts to host aGames of which they cannot be proud.Volunteerism is today seen as one of the components that has a part ofimproving the quality of life within a community. Increased volunteerism as aresult 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 DevelopmentSeveral ideas are brought forth: the development of more provincialoffices for sport, both in the government, and in the independent sportgoverning bodies, the development and implementation of programs to enhancesport, including coaching and technical programs and officiating programs, andlocal and regional development of particular sports, where little was present40before the bid. In a seminar on organizing multi-sport Games in Victoria, aworkshop concerning legacy development was led by Dr. Roger Jackson whowrote and subsequently stated:The greatest single stimulus to the development of sport in Canada wasthe development of the Canada Games in 1967. Not only did it committhe Federal Government to ongoing support for sport, but it brought theprovinces into funding sport for competitions, team development, andsupporting provincial sport organizations. 4A second argument in support of a legacy of sport development offeredis that to host major competitions, groups must bid among competingorganizations for the right to host. The three components necessary to forwarda suitable bid are adequate facilities, competent and experienced organizersand officials, and previous experience at hosting. The experience of havinghosted a Canada Games is seen as evidence of all three capabilities.New and improved facilities, experienced organizers and officials, greateraccess to sport equipment, improved club infrastructures, greater cooperationbetween municipal recreation departments, institutions, volunteer organizations,and sport organizing bodies and a human legacy of volunteerism are allcombined to point to a legacy of sport development that extends to thecommunity, the region, and indirectly to the larger sport community.Looking Ahead The claims of legacy made in the written record were taken to aninformed population for their reactions and opinions. The objective was to findout whether these well-established beliefs were widely shared among those41closely associated with or highly knowledgeable of the Canada Games, orwhether there were unpublished dissenting opinions that could add furtherinsight into the problem. Chapter Three describes the methods utilized.1. Cited in Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks 19872. 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,1992.42CHAPTER THREEMethod One of the questions posed in the introduction was, "What claims oflegacy are being made concerning the Canada Games?" Chapter Twosummarized the claims of legacy, using three broad categories: facilities andequipment, a human legacy, and a legacy of sport development. The secondquestion, "What evidence is there to support such claims?" can be partiallyanswered through document analysis. Business plans and final reports fromhost societies, as well as Federal Government reports, list capital expendituresand projects undertaken and completed, and also indicate detailed operatingbudgets applied to equipment. An additional necessary piece of information willbe equipment disbursal policies from host society administrative manuals, sinceequipment is only a legacy if it is left for the benefit of others.Evidence in support of certain legacy claims may be available in variousdocuments, depending upon what constitutes credible evidence of legacy. Ifthe assumption that funds spent on capital expenditures constitutes evidence oflegacy, then there is ample evidence that multi-sport games like the CanadaGames have left legacies of facilities over the last twenty-five years. In thesurvey described in this chapter, the population questioned was asked torespond to the claim of a legacy of facilities. Most respondents did not questionthe 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 equate43funds spent on facilities with an equivalent legacy value. The relationshipbetween funds spent and the value to the community is a more complexrelationship that has a number of variables which should be taken into accountif one is to speak meaningfully on the topic.An underlying assumption here is that if a bequest is left to a communityas a legacy, that it has a positive and sustaining influence. Macintosh,Bedecki, and Franks (1987) indicated that not every facility was seen by all aspositive. In at least two cases, the problem of operating costs following aCanada Games, has been seen by some as a negative influence.Good documentation also exists for evidence of equipment left to hostingcommunities and provinces after a Canada Games. These records indicatethat hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of sport equipment and venueequipment have been left after each Games. The available evidence showsthat considerable operating funds have been committed to equipment, andsince that equipment has, as a rule, been left to the benefit of sport groupsafterward, then it might be an easy conclusion that this is evidence in support ofa claim of legacy.The population surveyed was also asked to respond to their beliefs in aclaim of a legacy of sport equipment. Again, many reiterated what the literaturehas stated, that equipment is also a legacy of the Canada Games. But a fewrespondents questioned the claim, focussing on the relative value of the legacyand the duration of the legacy.44Although the dictionary defines the word "legacy" as a bequest left by apredecessor', the word "legacy" has additional connotations related to value. Atsome point, the word "legacy" may not be applicable if the item referred to hasminimal value. At what point is a legacy no longer a legacy? Surely a legacyis more than a bequest. The bequest must have some lasting and appreciablebenefit to the persons receiving the bequest. Few persons would question thelegacy effect of forty canoes and kayaks, worth a total value of about onehundred and thirty thousand dollars, forming the basis for a provincial canoeingand kayaking program for the next twenty years. Some who would go so far toclaim the boats are their facility. On the other hand, tennis balls, umpires'chairs, benches, singles sticks, and similar tennis equipment has far less valueto the tennis community in terms of necessities, and would be of questionablelegacy value. The word "legacy" is sometimes used to refer to all of thebequests, or changes and additions in facilities, equipment, attitudes, andstructures in place as a consequence of having hosted a Canada Games. Canwe meaningfully speak of all of these as legacies? Surely we classify them in amanner that collectively has an extrinsic value to some identifiable group. If wewere to speak of a multi-million-dollar swimming pool in the same breath as abox of used tennis balls when referring to legacy, most persons would wonderhow we were using the word "legacy". Yet, some of the reports mentioned usethe word "legacy" in this way, referring to large capital projects, equipment , ahuman legacy, and an improved sport development as items that could all be45classified 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 keyelement in providing meaning to claims of legacy with respect to multi-sportgames.Evidence of legacy is more complicated than pointing to expendituresfrom various Games. Each facility, or equipment disbursal, has to be looked atindividually to assess relative value. The question remains, though, whether theamassed facilities and equipment over several Games can be termed a legacyof the Canada Games. Are there instances that are significant in themselves,in either a positive or negative manner, such that we cannot evaluate thatquestion easily? The examples of the Stadium costs and the Velodromeproblems for the Montreal Olympics cannot and should not be forgotten. Arethere such cases within the history of the Canada Games? In addition, it isimportant to use the clarifying phrase "legacy to whom"? Some identifiablegroup must benefit from a bequest or legacy, or else the legacy effect cannotbe said to have occurred. When we speak of a legacy, we must always refer toa group. It will be seen in the next two chapters that the respondents to theinterviews and surveys often used the word "legacy" in a non-specific manner,grouping unalike items together, and neglecting to refer to the object of thelegacy claim.The claims of a human legacy have some problems of evidence. Theclaim of more officials may seem somewhat self-evident but consideration of its46value as a legacy may be more problematic. If the claim is that there are moreofficials, and better qualified officials, then a pre-assessment of the number andqualified officials needs to be done at the outset, an accounting after theGames would then give a clear comparison that might be used as evidence ofpotential legacy, or lack of it. No such projects have apparently beenundertaken and completed with any precision. A study is underway by thisauthor for the Kamloops 1993 Canada Games, but such evidence can only beoffered as potential for legacy, since this program of officials development forthe 1993 Games is not yet complete, and may not be representative of otherGames. The question would still remain, "Can an increase in the number ofofficials be termed a legacy?" Part of the problem is that the word "legacy" iscontinually used to describe a variety of bequests, large and small, sometangible, many not, and all of varying duration. The population surveyed wasasked to consider whether an increase in the number of officials should beconsidered as one of the noteworthy legacies of the Canada Games.Claims of community spirit and pride have been made fervently by anumber of persons, and are particular favourites heard at seminars, speeches,and other speaking engagements. It is most often expounded by those wholived in the hosting community, and numerous anecdotes are offered in supportof the claim. Again, little has been done to substantiate such claims, althoughpublic opinion polls conducted during various periods for the 1988 CalgaryWinter Olympics (Ritchie, J. and M. Lyons, "Olympulse", 1990) provided some47data with regard to community spirit that might be used as a measureapplicable to that particular Olympic Games. To the best knowledge of thisauthor, nothing has been done for the Canada Games through its twenty-fiveyear history. There is no question that the prevailing opinion is that communityspirit and pride are improved after hosting a successful Canada Games , butagain we might pause to reflect, "Can this be claimed as a legacy?" What isthe extent of the spirit and pride? How long does it last? What are its side-effects? What does it mean to have improved spirit and pride? Such insightswere sought from the population surveyed.Increased volunteerism is even more ephemeral than the other twoclaims of a human legacy. With little work done to measure such effects, theclaim could be reasonably questioned. Certainly there are many who have thebelief that this is a real benefit of hosting a Games. The goal in questioning thepopulation here was to seek insights into problems and solutions with theconcept of a human legacy. Claims of legacy in regard to sport developmentare again difficult to support with direct evidence. If measurement tools hadbeen applied to a community after receiving a Games four years before anevent, and then the same measure were applied following the Games, somereasonable argument of evidence might be applied. And yet, as is evidencedby comments in Chapter Two from scholars, sport administration professionals,government representatives, and others, there is a strong belief that the adventand the continuing presence of the Canada Games has been instrumental in4 8developing amateur sport in Canada. Academics have dealt with this in part,using comparisons between the historical rise of organizations and thedevelopment of policies of sport associations and government bodies, and thepartner funding and development for the Canada Games as an institution. Insurveying the population chosen, opinions on the claim were sought, with in-depth insight as to the extent and scope of sport development. Does the sportdevelopment legacy have a national, provincial, or regional scope? Are thereexamples where no legacy is perceived? Does the Games continue tostimulate sport development?In the interviews, an examination was made of, not just accord ordisagreement with the claims made in the literature, but also the informedexplanations for such claims. In addition, interviews were analyzed forunexpected statements not in accord with those voiced in the literature.The most difficult problem facing this study, however, was in selectingthe population. Ideally, the population would have the following attributes:a. be very knowledgeable about the Canada Games (experience withmore than one Games)b. be knowledgeable about the Canadian sport systemc. have sufficient in-depth acquaintance with the effects of aparticular Canada Games on a region, province, or at a nationalleveld. have a working knowledge of other multi-sport Games49e. be sufficiently unbiased 2 to meet the rigors of good researchf. be willing and able to speak freely on the topicAlthough the number of persons who might qualify under all terms excepte. above numbered over one hundred, very few persons qualified for allattributes listed above. A recognized weakness in the study right from theoutset is that the total number of persons who might be unbiased in theiropinion and who still qualify as knowledgeable was very few, perhaps as few astwenty persons. A significant unbiased sample not being available, the studywas then structured to pay particularly close attention to dissenting opinionsand 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 CanadaGames history were taken into account. The subjects could also be fromcommunities from all across Canada and from various points of thedevelopment of the Canada Games. Some way of narrowing to the mostinformed subjects was looked for in a way that would avoid the most biasedsample. Confining these persons geographically might also lead to results thatwould be pertinent to only one Games, and not applicable to Canada Games ingeneral.Some of the subjects chosen were pertinent key personnel who were inattendance at the Canada Winter Games held in Charlottetown in February of1991. The advantage of using a Canada Games festival as an opportunity to50interview is that those who are responsible for, or represent official bodies inregard to the Canada Games, are normally in attendance during a Games.These persons come from all across Canada. It is probably the only time thatmost of the current influential and prominent persons in the field are in oneplace at one time. All other persons were interviewed by telephone or inperson at subsequent times. The latter persons were contacted by means of amailed or facsimile-transmitted questionnaire, completed in April, 1991.Subjects fell into several categories:1. Federal Government Sport Ministry employee2. Provincial Sport Ministry employee3. National Sport Organization representative4. Provincial Sport Organization representative5. Host Society Management personnel6. Canada Games Council members and staff7. Civic Recreation directors8. Academics concerned with Canadian Sport9. Provincial or Territorial Chefs de Mission10. Individual coaches, managers, and officials11. Media representativesConcern to find an unbiased sample was held as a high priority inselecting persons for interview and for the survey. In an effort to determinewhich representatives might be the most biased, three groupings were used.51Persons were considered to have a vested interest if they were employed byan organization that continues to fund the Canada Games or has a mandate tosupport the Canada Games by virtue of the organization's written policies.Persons who represent organizations that actively participate in the CanadaGames were considered to have a possible vested interest becauseparticipation can be construed to be an indirect endorsement of the CanadaGames program. A third category was established for persons who have novested interest by virtue of employment or organizational endorsement. Anyperson 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 thisstudy, the following three groupings were used as a tool for the analysis ofresponses:Vested Interest (VI) Host SocietiesCanada Games CouncilFederal Government Sport Ministry representativesChefs de MissionProvincial Government Sport Ministry representativesPossible Vested Interest (PVI) National Sport Organization representativeProvincial Sport Organization representativeNo Apparent Vested Interest (NAVI) MediaAcademicsCivic Recreation DirectorsIndividuals (coaches, managers, officials)52All of those surveyed and interviewed had varying knowledge of theCanada Games. Basic criteria in selecting individuals included:a. involvement in more than one Canada Games or in organizing aGames over a four-year periodb. in-depth knowledge of the Canadian sport system and/or theCanada Gamesc.^responsibility for the Canada Games at a senior level.Using these criteria above, the largest number of available persons forthe study therefore were in the VI group, with the smallest number in the NAVIgroup. To overcome problems with this imbalance, extra effort to seek out andachieve interviews within the NAVI group were attempted, and further effortsbeyond the main data collection period of time were undertaken.One hundred and six attempts were made by mail, fax, or telephoneinterview. Of the eighty-nine questionnaires, twenty-five were returned. All ofthe other persons were interviewed in person or by telephone. The chart belowlists the target group and data collection method:Table 1. - Target Group/ Data CollectionTarget Group Mail/Fax Telephone InterviewFed. Govt. reps 2 0 1NSO/PSO reps 1 2 2C. Games Council 3 0 0 1Chefs de Mission/Prov. Govts. 14 1 153Host Society personnel^5^3^3Recreation Directors^0^4^1Individuals^ 2^5^2Academics 1^2^1Media^ 0^3^0Totals 25^20^12There were thirty-one persons in the VI group, five in the PVI group, andtwenty-one in the NAVI group.The sending out and return of questionnaires took place in February andMarch, 1991. Interviews were conducted between February, 1991 andNovember, 1992.Methodology - Data Collection InterviewsA short pilot study was conducted, using key personnel of the 1993Canada Games Society and PSO representatives as a sample group. Eachperson was interviewed in person, or over the telephone, using the interviewguide listed below.Interview Guide - Pilot Study. Introductions and small talk. Relate purpose of study. Indicate responses are recorded54. 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 (chooseone that has not yet been brought up). Do you agree with thisclaim? (prompt elaboration) Continue...6. What can you conclude about claims of legacy in regard to theCanada Games?The pilot interview guide was tested with management committeemembers of the Kamloops Canada Games Society and several PSOrepresentatives.Observations on the Pilot Study: 1. The word "claims" was found to be leading when used at thebeginning of the interview.2. The method of leaving the interview open-ended to start and then55focussing on other claims resulted in some unexpected responses,yielding, in several cases, greater depth of explanation andrationale.3. By coming back to the claims made in the literature, the interviewmaintained some focus, and a way of returning back to thepurpose 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 inanticipation of the final interviews.After completing the pilot study in December, 1990 and January, 1991, afinal interview guide was constructed.Interview Guide (Final Draft) a. Introduction/small talkb. Purpose of Study:To determine what meaning we can give the word "legacy"in reference tothe 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 likea bequest.56Questions: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, writershave made certain claims. Please respond to each, and explain:1. A legacy of sport facilities...2. A legacy of equipment (sport and other...)3. A legacy of trained officials....4. A legacy of sport development. References aremade to local, regional, and provincial organizationshaving improved infrastructures, better experience,and more qualified personnel...Can you think of other examples of a legacy of sportdevelopment?5. A legacy of community spirit and pride....6. A legacy of increased volunteerism...7.^Are there any other claims that could be reasonablymade about the legacy of the Canada Games?e. Thank you's.5 7Interview 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 interviewercan evoke response effects. The interviewer, in this case, had an official rolewith the Canada Games, that of Vice President, Sport, for the Kamloops 1993Canada Games Society until the summer of 1992, when the interviewer tookthe 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 roleof a Vice President and, in the researcher's case, later as a Manager, toresearch more about the Canada Games, in preparation for the upcomingGames. At the 1991 Canada Games, the interviewer also had Official ObserverStatus, representing the 1993 Host Society. In addition, the same kinds ofintroductions were used in telephone interviews. In the case of telephoneinterviews, a brief introductory letter was sent by facsimile to the person inquestion, preceding the interview. The same letter was sent by facsimile to allthe targeted persons prior to the 1991 Canada Games. Questionnaires werepresented in a similar fashion.58Interview guides were used with sufficient space to write comments righton the sheets. Attempts were made to make the recording of answers open tothe scrutiny of the person being interviewed, if requested. Notes were takenthroughout the data collection process.Record keeping for data collection consisted of tracking those targetedby 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 AnalysisFrom the open-ended part of the interviews, a summary of the salient pointswas made. Notes were taken during all interviews. These were usually readback to the person interviewed at the conclusion of each interview.Because in-depth explanations were attempted, a more qualitativeapproach to data analysis was taken. Quotations and key words were used inthe findings.The researcher worked with the assumption that a qualitative approachthrough the use of direct quotations would provide the best summary of thepertinent opinion.As data were analyzed, some method of distinguishing biased commentswas needed. Using the three groupings noted earlier, comments wereanalyzed to note whether they agreed with the conventional thinking aboutlegacies, as noted in Chapter Two, disagreed, or offered new insights that could59be categorized as either in agreement with, or not agreement. A matrix wasused to analyze the findings:Subject (name, position):^Group (circle one):^Vested Interest (VI)Possible Vested Interest (PVI)No Apparent Vested Interest (NAVI)LegacyClaimAgree RationaleOfferedDisagree RationaleOfferedYes or NoFacilitiesEquipmentOfficialsHumanlegacySportDevt.Some subjects offered opinions that agreed with the conventionalthinking that multi-sport Games leave a legacy, and of these, some offered arationale for that opinion. Others did not agree with that notion. Almosteveryone interviewed offered some sort of reasoning, but in many cases,rationales were either circular in meaning, that is terms were defined asopposed to pointing to cause and effect relationships, or consisted of repeatedconventional wisdom phrases. Either way, all comments were taken intoaccount.The category Yes or No was used to account for those subjects who60contributed insightful commentary into the questions posed, or werenoncommittal in their response. In many cases, these comments were themost useful in providing a meaningful critical analysis of each legacy claim.In addition, the fifty-seven records were then subjected to another levelof analysis. Unexpected responses led to a greater level of understanding andinsight into what was being said, and data were reviewed in light of these newinsights. This data analysis was critical in nature, and in many cases led tomore questions needing answers. The researcher then undertook furtherdocument analysis of the literature, and more importantly, used the telephone toseek 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, tenpersons interviewed were also Canada Gaemes Council members.61CHAPTER FOURFindings 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 thosewho 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 sectionsreport the findings of the surveys, interviews, and follow-up investigations. Thestructure of each section is as follows:a. background information/discussionb. The responses - statistical summaryc. Analysis/interpretation with regard to biasd. Sample quotations by groupingse. commentary and summaryLegacy Claim: FacilitiesAn examination of financial statements and final reports of each CanadaGames gives clear indication of the funds spent on capital facilities. Thefollowing table outlines the capital budgets from the most recent Games:62Table 2.--- Capital Budgets from Canada Games, 1985 - 1993Year Host Capital Budget1985 Saint John $13 500 0001987 Cape Breton $ 9 400 0001989 Saskatoon $ 9 200 0001991 Charlottetown $21 500 000 11993 Kamloops $10 400 000Capital budgets are used to construct new sport facilities, or upgradeexisting facilities. How the funds are actually spent is a decision a Host Societymakes in consultation with its partners. The Society's mandate is to conduct aCanada Games and since facilities that meet national standards are required toconduct the 16 to 21 concurrent national competitions within the CanadaGames, the Host Society would normally conduct a study examining thefacilities in the Host Community with respect to the improvements necessary tomeet national hosting standards. Sport governing bodies and local sportsgroups are consulted, and a facilities construction and upgrade program is laidout and then approved by the Board of Directors, which includesrepresentatives of each of the funding partners: the Federal Government,Provincial Government, Civic Government, and possibly others, beforeconstruction is begun.The following two tables outlines the facilities program from Saint John,1985 and Kamloops, 1993:63Table 3. Summary of Facilities Improvements, St. John (1985)Sport^Improvements Undertaken ArcheryBaseballBasketballCanoeingCyclingDiving/swimmingField HockeyLacrosseRugbySailingSoccerTennisTrack and FieldWater SkiingField upgradefield upgrade, lighting, infieldstime clock and scoreboardsnew course, docking, storage facilityroute road repairs50 m pool and diving tanktwo new fieldsgeneral refurbishfield upgrade, fencingfacility upgradetwo new fieldsseven new courtsnew 8-lane track with stadiumnew courseTable 4. - Summary of Facility Improvements, Kamloops (1993)SportArcheryBaseballBasketballCanoeing/RowingDiving/SwimmingField hockeyRugbySailingSoccerSoftballTennisTrack and fieldWater SkiingWrestlingImprovements Undertaken new field construction, clubhousenew field construction; upgrade toexisting fieldnew floorcourse installation, boathouse, siteimprovements50m indoor aquatic centretwo new competition fieldstwo new competition fields and clubhousenew site development and clubhousefieldhouse, parking, and field upgradeupgrade to existing facilitiesdevelopment of 8-court tennis centretrack surface, field house, siteimprovementscourse installation, site development,clubhouseminor upgrade64A preliminary analysis of the list of facilities from these two Gamesshows a construction program that spans several summer sports. But a closeanalysis of the whole facilities program may lead one to believe that the greatershare of expenditures may in fact be mostly tied up in one or two facilities. Inthe cases offered, the major portions of the capital budgets went to the CanadaGames Aquatic Centres. In the case of both the 1993 and 1985 Games, thisaccounted for approximately sixty percent of the total budget. The secondlargest expenditure in both cases was for the development of the new track andfield facility at the University of New Brunswick in Saint John and UniversityCollege of the Cariboo in Kamloops. Summer Games tend to build or upgradetrack and field facilities for two reasons: the relative high profile of track andfield events during the Games, and as a site for hosting opening and closingceremonies.The capital program in these examples built several new facilities,providing prima facie evidence which would appear to be a potential sustaininglegacy for the Host Community, and the larger sport community, but closerexamination of some of the improvements yields some interesting results.Upgrades provide minor improvements to existing facilities. Many ofthese upgrades might be considered cosmetic in nature, or minorenhancements. Such upgrades are nice to have, but do not significantlyenhance legacy claims.Specific analysis of what constitutes a legacy in the minds of those who65will use the facilities also uncovers some interesting opinions. In 1989 inSaskatoon, an impressive rowing and canoeing venue was built. The on-shorefacility was built to service the needs of provincial paddlers and oarsmen formany years. But for some rowers and canoeists the facility could instead bedefined as the craft on the water. An expensive on-shore facility is no good toa club that cannot afford shells, kayaks, or canoes. In this case, on-shorefacilities, plus shells, plus a course equals a legacy. Without one or more ofthe three, some would claim that the legacy effect would not occur. In the lasttwo Summer Games, no shells were purchased, described by some as, "Anincomplete legacy."The most controversial issue in facilities for most Games is whether ornot to build a pool, and if so, what type of pool. Kamloops debated the relativemerits of an indoor versus an outdoor fifty metre competition pool. Even thoughan outdoor pool accounts for millions of dollars in the capital budget, local swimgroups and the provincial sport organization called the outdoor option, "Nolegacy at all." The reasons are simple: Kamloops has an over abundance ofoutdoor pools already, and the harsh winters make the usage of such a facilityminimal for developing swimmers and divers. In 1990, an outdoor 50 m poolwith support facilities was estimated to cost between one and two and a halfmillion dollars, depending upon the "bells and whistles" chosen (Johnson 1990).In this case, millions of dollars of a capital budget was described as "Nolegacy."66Another key point is that the gaining of a new facility must be weighedagainst the cost of operating that facility. In 1991, an indoor 50 metrecompetition pool with diving tank in Canada would have an annual operatingdeficit of about six hundred thousand dollars (Johnson 1990). A communitymight 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 ayear following the Games, until an operating agreement was worked out:Going back to St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1978, the costs associatedwith the Pool forced a closing of this facility for approximately one yearimmediately after the Games as dispute raged between the City and theProvince as to who would bear the penalty of operating costs (Lesaux1991 1 ).In another case, the pool was refit several times with significant costs toreduce operating deficits. One could question whether some communities canafford such a legacy.The ResponsesThe question of a legacy of facilities generated the most interest amongthose surveyed. Every respondent had something to say about the topic, andmany were able to elaborate and give examples. Of the sample of fifty-seven,fifty-seven responses were recorded, and additionally an analysis of positiveresponses, or responses that agreed with the claim that the Canada Gameshas been responsible for a legacy of facilities, of negative responses, orresponses that disagreed that the Canada Games has been responsible for a67legacy of facilities, and of answers which could not fit into either the categoryAgree or Disagree, was undertaken:Total sample 57Total responses 57 (100%)Total: Agree 44 (77%)Total: Disagree 0 (0%)Total: Yes or No 13 (23%)Because some responses did not fit into the Agree (white) or Disagree(black) categories, some method was needed of determining how to interpretgrey answers. It became apparent early on that a clarifying question during aninterview like, "So you agree that the claim...?" helped to refocus answers. Forquestionnaires this was not possible, but in most cases, there was little doubtas to the nature of the answer. Two of the questionnaires contained Yes or Noanswers. An additional eleven of those interviewed also offered Yes or Noanswers. It was these thirteen Yes or No answers that proved the mostinteresting, and will form the basis of much of the next chapter's content. Interms of the groupings by bias 2, the breakdown was as follows:Table 5 - Responses by Groupings: FacilitiesVI (24) PVI (11) NAVI (22) TotalAgree 20 (83%) 10 (91%) 14 (64%) 44Disagree 0 0 0 0Yes or No 4 (17%) 1 (9%) 8 (36%) 13Totals 24 (100%) 11 (100%) 22 (100%) 5768It is clear that the VI Group and PVI Bias Group have a stronger level ofbelief 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 tothe positive side of the question. The critical point to note, though, is that thethirteen 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 simplemanner. Facilities are a legacy only if certain other conditions are met. Of thethirteen Yes or No responses, eleven referred to operating costs. Of theseeleven, seven have lived in a Canada Games community that inherited thefacilities after the Games. Their responses were generally more specific,offering examples, and in particular mentioning swimming pools. Alsomentioned was the necessity of doing sound feasibility studies beforeundertaking a facilities construction program. Others had examples of facilitiesthat were built that have fallen into disuse, or have been converted to otheruses.The Agree group also offered good examples, and many linked thefacilities legacy to a sport development legacy.The following quotations3 are samples of commentary from the Agree group:Before the Canada Games, there were only a few first class facilitiesacross Canada. With the capital program begun in 1969, national classfacilities were being built in smaller communities. The impact was feltmost greatly in smaller provinces. 4Approximately $65 - 70 million dollars have been spent since 1969.Many communities would never have been able to afford these facilitieswithout the Canada Games. 569Some facilities have multiple users, ie. a stadium for track, soccer, rugby,etc. and these new facilities have benefitted the wider population withinan area, more than just the sport for which the facility was built. 6The use of feasibility studies and the availability of capital resources willdetermine 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 hostingnational events and for training centres for athletic development!'The many millions of dollars put into facility development provide aneconomic boost...providing benefits for years to come sThe Games provided much-needed sport facilities in our area. Some ofthe smaller sport organizations in particular have benefitted from facilitieswhich would not have come without the Games. 16We have gone on to host many other competitions. The legacy of theGames has been the ability to host other high level events on thefacilities built for the Canada Games.'From a recreational standpoint, the facilities that we built have providedthe 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 recreationare part of what we are about. The Canada Games were a catalyst tothat way of thinking.'The Agree group supported the belief that the capital budgets fromCanada Games have contributed greatly to communities across Canada.However, the Yes or No group felt that it would be simplistic to equate theamount of dollars to the value of the legacy. Some facilities can be said tohave had a negative impact on the community, thereby lessening the legacy70effect. It was felt that the legacy implications of building new facilities withreference to use after the Games should be in the minds of Host Communitiesand the governments that fund those facilities. The following comments wereoffered from the Yes or No group:A key concern is that recreational users have dominated facilities builtoriginally for sport use. 13Some facilities have fallen into disuse and are no longer functional. 14The ownership of facilities after Games may be a thorny issue. 15Allow 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 increaseproperty taxes, seek debentures and the like to meet new andunanticipated financing needs for Canada Games facilities. That is theother 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 Federalgovernments in planning these facilities. There has been no overall planin mind to achieve value for the dollars spent. 17It is difficult to decide which sports should get the funds for facilities. Is itbetter to consider the total number of potential participants, therebybenefitting 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 likecanoeing, archery, biathlon, fencing, and field hockey should get thefacilities by the second principle. 18It has always bothered me...those people who were deciding whichfacilities we should have...Sport should have been the primary focus, buttourism seemed to guide their thinking more than I cared for: 9The most important task to complete before facilities are built is tosecure good operating agreements for the ongoing operating andmaintenance cost for each facility. It may also be important to ensuregood use agreements are drafted, agreed to, and signed by all parties sothat sport groups will have access to and use of the facilities built for the71Games. There have been many facilities built for past Games for whichthis was not done, and are now used for other purposes. 23Host Societies and the communities in which they live have planned andconstructed facilities with little to no involvement from those who arefunding and responsible for sport development: the Federal andProvincial Governments. The thinking behind this absenteeism is thatsince the community will be responsible for operating and the upkeep ofthe facilities, the community should plan the facilities which it can mostreadily support. 21The facility standards for Canada Games are set by the NSO's andsupported by the Federal Government with little reference to local needsand demands. In theory, exemptions and alternate solutions arepossible as in the deletion of alpine skiing from the PEI Games, butthose who make the decisions are blind to the bigger issues of buildingfacilities too large and expense for smaller communities to support. Thebest example is the continuing standard of building fifty metre indooraquatic facilities in communities under one hundred and fifty thousandpeople. The costs per capita are staggering. But the standard ofbuilding these pools is upheld every four years, even as Games areawarded to smaller and smaller communities. The costs now for such anaquatic facility is somewhere between 50% to 100% of the capitalfunding for a Games. 22The technical requirement to build a fifty metre pool was problematic forus. The partner funding for facilities for our Games was equal to thecost of the pool. All other facilities had to be built from funds that weraised on our own. How do you plan and construct facilities on fundsthat you may have in place, and even if they are raised, will be availabletoo late for the time required to design and construct first-class facilities?This is no way to plan a facilities program. 23One of the problems I see is that the planning of facilities for Games issometimes done by amateurs who know either a lot about design or a lotabout sport, but lack the depth of knowledge and experience necessaryto skilfully find the right combination of needed facilities for eachcommunity. I know of one large project that was undertaken becausethe president had an active interest in that sport. 24The salient points brought out by those with Yes or No answers can besummarized as follows:721. Operating and maintenance costs must be factors in consideringthe 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 theCanada Games movement on a regular basis with various issuesin mind: matching facilities to local environmental conditions suchas population size and demographics, climate demands,escalating construction costs, basic needs versus enhancedneeds, and other issues relevant to considering how standards areconsidered in relation to cost-efficiency and matching facilities tocommunity needs.4. Good planning for use of the facilities after the Games to ensurethey are used for the sport development after the Games.Further issues and conclusions over the legacy of facilities will bedetailed in the next chapter.A Claim of a Legacy of EquipmentThe second claim put forward the idea that certain equipment purchasedor acquired for the Games could be clearly identified within the operatingbudgets for Host Societies, and that they can be used as evidence for a claimof legacy.Sport EquipmentSport equipment is the most obvious choice to analyze. The following73table displays the budgets for sport equipment for the last few Games:YearTable 6.--- Canada Games Sport Equipment BudgetsCity^ Budget1985 St. John $500 0001987 Cape Breton $350 0001989 Saskatoon $550 0001991 Charlottetown $600 0001993 Kamloops $709 000Thousands of items are needed to host the multi-sport competitions of aCanada Games. Many of the items would be too small to be considered anypart of a legacy. But many other items would warrant consideration as a legacyfor the sporting community.The following table lists some examples of from the sport equipmentbudget for 1993:Table 7.--- Selected Canada Games Sport EquipmentSport^ Item^ Value ($)Wrestling competition mats/scoreclocks^$ 31 000Canoeing^48 canoes and kayaks^$130 000Sailing Sailboats and sailboards^$190 000Athletics^Track and field equipment^$145 000Other expensive equipment for equipment-dependent sports like74gymnastics should also be considered. Such equipment is normally beyond thescope of local sport clubs to acquire without substantial fund-raising.Sport equipment is purchased or acquired for the Games within theoperating budget. The disbursal of the equipment following a Games followspolicies set by Management within the Host Society. The precedent has beento 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 yethappened, the sport equipment has been disbursed to the defined sportcommunity.One of the interesting issues voiced was over the longevity of use of theequipment. Again, gymnastics equipment, track and field equipment, and boatshave a longer period of usefulness, but much of the other equipment purchasedfor a Games has a one to three year life before needing replacement.Other equipment like ceremonial equipment, office equipment, venueequipment, and whatever else ends up in the Games warehouse following theGames was mentioned by only two of the respondents, who had little to addbeyond the mention of possible legacy.The ResponsesThe question of a legacy of equipment generated far less interest thanthat of facilities, although most persons interviewed had some thoughts on theissue. All but three persons offered opinions on the survey or in interview with75regard to a legacy of sport equipment. The breakdown was as follows:Responses - A Legacy of EquipmentTotal sample 57 (100%)Total responses 54 (95%)Total: Agree 31 (58%)Total: Disagree 12 (22%)Total: Yes or No 11 (20%)Total: No response 3 (5%)Commentary on returned questionnaires tended to be brief, though ininterview persons added a little more. Six of the respondents had significantcommentary 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%) 31Disagree 4 (17%) 1 (9%) 7 (32%) 12Yes and No 5 (21 %) 1 (9%) 5 (21 %) 11No response 1 (4%) 0 2 (9%) 3The results clearly show a divided set of opinions on the issue ofwhether equipment can be claimed as a legacy of the Canada Games. Thosewho spoke in agreement with the claim often had good examples from specificGames in support of their opinion. It seems that equipment has been disburseddifferently, according to the differing policies of individual Games. In someGames, the legacy of equipment was written into the multi-party agreement withspecific allocation handed over to the provincial sport associations of that76province. 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 thepersons who agreed with the claim of a legacy of sport equipment are thefollowing:Clubs, schools, City Rec programs, universities, and PSO's have allbenefitted. The fleet of racing canoes and kayaks from the 1985 Gamescreates the backbone for New Brunswick programs. 25The use of feasibility type studies prior to the Games can enable thehost society to distribute and utilize Games sport equipment after thecompletion of the Games in a way that 'enhances' the legacy effect. 26The legacy of the sport equipment can be more far reaching than just inthe city where the Games were held. If distributed accordingly, theequipment can be used by people throughout the province, providing amuch broader legacy base. 27Major fixed equipment such as gymnastics equipment and timing andscoring equipment provides long term benefit for both training andcompetition. 28Purchase of equipment encourages the development of a sport whichpreviously may not have existed. 29A legacy of sport equipment can also be viewed from a facilitiesperspective, specifically an aquatic facility or a track and field stadiumare incomplete without the necessary training and competitionequi pm ent. 36Equipment is particularly important to smaller clubs, that cannot getstarted because of the financial obstacles of acquiring the necessaryequipment. 31Many sport associations rely upon the rotation of major Games comingto that province as part of their chance to develop a base of neededequipment and other infrastructure support. The Canada Games is partof that cycle. 3277Persons who disagreed with the claim of a legacy of sport equipment didso largely because of two issues. It was strongly expressed by some thatbecause the effect of the legacy was comparatively small, the word "legacy"was being inappropriately used. Second, a sense of the equipment going outto a small group, and not accessible to all lessened the legacy effect to thelarger community. A few respondents simply stated that we should not speakof a legacy of sport equipment. A few examples are cited:To my knowledge, not a major legacy. 33Equipment was spoken of as a legacy, but what I saw was equipmentdistributed to groups that gladly accepted the equipment, but in theensuing years I saw no appreciable impact on their sport programming. 34Sport equipment for the few local groups who used the equipment can'tbe called a legacy the way facilities or other benefits the Gamesprovided that the whole community shared. 35Those who answered with Yes or No answers largely focussed on thelongevity of the equipment, or defined the equipment as a "minor legacy." Thefollowing few examples illustrate this line of thinking:This is a short term legacy. 36Equipment has a limited life span. Equipment is a way of 'paying off'schools, neighbourhoods, sport, and club commitment to the Games.37Expendable equipment has only limited short term value. 38Not all of the equipment can be considered a legacy. At least half of theequipment that we purchased had little value to the community beyondone or two years.397 8In some cases, insufficient storage space, inadequate facilities to housethe equipment, and local clubs who were not organized sufficiently toarrange the insurance, maintenance, and storage of the equipment ledus to bequeath some of the equipment to provincial sport organizations.4°In general, the majority of the persons interviewed believed that weshould speak of a legacy of equipment as one of the notable legacies of theCanada 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 greatestof the possible list of legacies for that particular group. For example, the legacyof canoes and kayaks left for paddlers in the province of Saskatchewan wasnoted as the keystone for flatwater racing development for the upcomingdecade. Several persons questioned whether we should use the term "legacy"in the same way that we speak of a legacy of facilities. The opinions variedsufficiently to warrant critical re-examination of this concept. The word "legacy"needs to be used more carefully in the context of major Games. Chapter Fivewill carry on with this line of thinking in more detail.A Claim of a Legacy of OfficialsIt was earlier mentioned that the claim of a legacy of trained officialscould be readily supported if numbers of officials were systematically recordedbefore a Games, and then compared to post-Games numbers. Unfortunatelyno such study could be found in the literature, nor in Games' reports.In 1989, the author conducted a systematic evaluation of the status ofofficials in Kamloops. Officials for each of the eighteen summer sports selected7 9for the 1993 Canada Games were counted. In general, the results were that intwo sports, softball and soccer, there were significant numbers of trained andcertified officials, but in the other sixteen sports, the numbers were small, andinsufficient 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 personshad let their certification lapse.If numbers have increased by the fall of 1993, this would offer someevidence that for at least one Games, there was a potential legacy of trainedofficials. A third phase of the study, say five years after the Games, mightprovide a level of evidence from which one could argue statements of legacy.Another issue concerning a legacy of officials, is that officials needpractice at a high level in order to be upgraded. Each Canada Games attemptsto run test events in the year prior to a Canada Games. This offers experienceand an opportunity to upgrade. The Games themselves can be used as anevaluation period for upgrading.A general issue concerning officials is that of continuity. Some personsinterviewed or surveyed felt that officials graded to the first levels tend to havea high turn-over and burn-out rate. One could question the legacy claim ifnumbers dwindled to near pre-Games status within a short period of time.80The ResponsesA legacy of officials was answered with most interest by thoseassociated closely or directly employed by the sport system. A frequent pointexpressed was that almost every sport has a problem of recruiting, maintainingcertification, and retaining officials. The attitudes, behaviours, and sport specific"cultural" reactions of athletes, coaches, spectators, and aficionados towardofficials tended to dissuade persons from sticking with the sport. Some felt thatif a Games could generate more officials within an area, this could be seen asa legacy to the sport system. A second thought pointed out by some was thathosting major competitions depended somewhat upon having a cadre of trainedofficials 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 evidencesupporting 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 tomake an important point. It was felt by some that many officials upgrade, notfor the long-term good of the sport or for their own long-term professionaldevelopment, but as a one-time-only commitment for the good of the two-weekevent, the Canada Games. A number of persons again questioned the relativevalue of a legacy of officials compared to other legacy claims.The breakdown of responses were as follows:Total sample^57Total responses 5581Total: Agree 39Total : Disagree 9Total: Yes and No 7Total: no response 2The division between agreement and disagreement was much clearerwith this issue. The four "grey" answers leaned toward the negative, butoffered enough of a combination of hope and scepticism to give them their owncategory. The VI Group was more inclined to agree with the claim, while thosein the PVI group, or those in the NAVI group who had lived in a Canada Gameshost community after a Games had more doubts than others.Table 9. - Responses by Groupings: OfficialsVI (24) PVI (11) NAVI (22) Total(57)Agree 20 (83%) 10 (91%) 9 (41%) 39Disagree 1 (4%) 0 8 (36%) 9Yes or No 1 (4%) 1 (9%) 5 (23%) 7No Opinion 2 (8%) 0 0 2With thirty-nine of fifty-five persons agreeing that a claim of a legacy ofofficials was an appropriate claim for the Canada Games, we might be inclinedto conclude that the evidence from the survey and interviews leads one to lendsupport to the majority opinion. But in matters of opinion, it is the questionsasked that must be examined first before committing to belief. The nature of thequestions posed can yield misleading results. As will be further detailed in the82next chapter, it will be argued that questions of legacy are dealt with in toosuperficial a manner. It has been commonplace to claim that major Games areresponsible for legacies, but the underlying assumptions of such claims havenot been adequately brought forward. The assumptions with regard to officialsis one such example.On the positive side of responses, the following comments illustrate theline of thinking taken by some:Officials...continue to play a leadership role in their sport. There aremasses of technical support officials who ... have their interest piqued inthat support as a result of the Games competitions.'"I would suggest that the major legacy for officials is the development oftheir organizational and networking strengths both in the host community,and on a national-interprovincial basis. 42I can give you one example. We needed over one hundred officials fortrack 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 whohave continued to support track events in our community. 43Officials are a key element in developing a high performance sportprogram in the province. Without high profile events like the CanadaGames, we would have trouble attracting numbers of officials, except inthe larger cities.'"Most respondents agreed that more officials were present after a CanadaGames, and that had a positive legacy for the province. Some respondents feltthe claim of legacy was not significant, largely because of the lack of continuityin training, experience, and support following a Games.On the negative side of the claim of a legacy of officials, the followingcomments show some of the doubts expressed:83Officials like equipment have a limited shelf life. A study would beneeded to see exactly how many stayed active. My guess is 10 to 20%beyond those who were 'in' already. 46It would be interesting to see how many lower level officials stay with thesport (e.g., in PEI they certified 50 biathlon level one officials, while theydon't even have fifty biathletes in the province. 47Part of the problem is that the support to develop officials needs to comefrom the provincial sport organizations and/or the provincial government,and for them to develop large numbers of officials in a smallercommunity is just not very cost-effective. There is also the problem ofsupport after the Games. Many of the PSO's see it as a short termexpense, placing a drain on the current shrinking funding for theirorganization:18The legacy effect here is minimal:45On the Yes or No side, the majority of doubt echoed those samethoughts expressed by the Disagree group, but still remained somewhat dividedin their thinking, noting some of the benefits in specific cases from specificGames. The following quotations exemplify Yes or No answers:Hard to measure and not always a long-lasting legacy. Many peopletrain only for the Games...some do not officiate often enough (after) tomaintain their certification. Most are support or minor officials, or`volunteers' with technical functions. The local technical official likely hada start long before the award of the Games, but the Games may haveaccelerated his/her certification level. 55The legacy of trained officials is present, but could be much moresystematic...a crucial resource is human resources...we need to buildmuch more than we are. 51It is not wholly clear who is to develop these officials. Sometimes it isleft to local organizers to hold the clinics and provide the leadership. Insuch cases, the ongoing support will unlikely be available after theGam es. 52Most respondents agreed that more officials were present after a Canada84Games, and that had a positive effect on the area or province. Somerespondents felt the claim of legacy was not significant, largely because of thelack of continuity in training, experience, and support following a Games.Of the persons interviewed or surveyed, some felt that we could speak oftrained officials as a legacy of the Canada Games, with some wishing to qualifyit as a lesser legacy. Four persons spoke of a legacy of trained officials as partof 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 theCanada Games.d. The PSO's have inadequate resources to continue to support theupgrading of officials in smaller communities.e.^The sport system as a whole has too few incentives to continue tointerest 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 examinecommon concerns for officials of all sports. Guest speakers and panels spokefrom the perspective of their own sport, and a few from a multi-sportperspective. Some of the conclusions 52 with points relevant to this study werethe following:851. Burnout of officials is a problem for all sports.2. The supply of officials formerly came from athletes who hadmoved to the Masters ranks. With the advent of masters'competitions across most sports, the numbers of available officialswas 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 theamateur level, most officials do so out of goodwill, with expensespaid out-of-pocket. It has become expensive to maintaincertification. Some of the costs incurred are for coursesupgrades, uniforms, travel and accommodation.5. Travel incentives are one of the key incentives for officials tocontinue to upgrade and maintain skill levels. Some sports havean old boys network which allocates assignments. Newer officialshave a harder time getting the experience, or the trips.6. It is hard for persons in smaller communities to maintain their levelof certification.7.^Many amateur athletes and spectators have not recognized theofficial'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 supported86with active programs for recruitment and reinforcement within some provincialsport organizations, and much less so at the club or association level. If this isthe case, it would not be surprising that a legacy of officials would be short-termor questioned by those who cannot agree with a claim of a legacy of officials.A Claim of a Legacy of Community Spirit and PrideAnother claim arising in the literature is that there is a legacy ofcommunity spirit and pride. This claim may seem self-evident to anyone whohas ever attended a Canada Games. Some public opinion polls undertaken bymajor Games committees like the Calgary Olympics have surveyed residents inHost Communities to track their support for the Games before, during and afterthe Games (Ritchie and Lyons 1990). Results tended to show a strengtheningof community pride and support following a Games. Unfortunately, nocomparable study has been undertaken for a Canada Games city.Nevertheless, several respondents pointed out the case of Saskatoon. Afterhosting the Canada Games in 1971, the community went on to host manynational and international events, the Canada Games again in 1989, and, assuch, has since gained the nickname the "Volunteer Capital" of Canada.Saint John, New Brunswick, is also often cited as a good example of acommunity that has significantly increased its community spirit as a result ofhosting the Games. Some persons claim a fifteen year span of increased spiritfollowing the conclusion of a major Games.87The ResponsesTotal Sample 57Total responses 57Total: Agree 54Total: Disagree 0Total: Yes and No 3An overwhelming response in support of the claim of an increasedcommunity 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 andpride or of the longevity of the effect.Table 10 - Responses by Groupings: Community Spirit and PrideVI (24) PVI (11) NAVI (22) Total(57)Agree 23 10 21 54Disagree 0 0 0 0Yes and No 1 1 1 3This claim of legacy had strong support among all questioned. Pertinentcomments include the following:The networks established by volunteers and the realization that they canorganize something as big as the Canada Games not only generatesvisible spirit and pride - but also the capacity to host other significantsports events in the future. 54An increased self-confidence by community members may lead thecommunity toward new challenges...A sense of community pride andprestige is a rare treasure. 55The Canada Games give the host community an opportunity to show itspeople and talents to the rest of Canada and communities always rise tothe occasion .5688It is a rare event that brings people from all walks of life together to worktowards one common goal and even now, volunteers remember this timewith fondness and pride. 57Spirit and pride shines for a while but then wanes after a period of timeafter the Games. 58An opportunity to share their culture and heritage creating newpride...brings community leaders closer together to share in a commongoal 59No doubt this is the lasting legacy of all Games, however, even moreimportant is the community network which is developed in partnershipsbetween governments, school, sports, culture, businesses, andvolunteers. This network does not dissolve after the Games and itshould stand to serve the community's development for years to come. 66No question this is one of the most important legacies. It is impossibleto quantify, but easy to observe if you live within the community beforeduring and after the Games (as I have twice). 61In Saint John, the Games helped to turn the negative, dark side of thecity into positive brightness. 62One of the persons interviewed claimed that the effect had an averagelifespan of fifteen years. The remaining few had reasonable doubts about thelongevity of the pride and spirit following the Games. For two of therespondents, it was felt that the larger the community, the less the claim wasrelevant. Would hosting a Canada Games increase the community spirit andpride in a city like Vancouver?A key problem here is that of measurement. Unless surveys are takenat various times, data in support of such claims cannot be used to supportthese beliefs.89As mentioned earlier, surveys taken in hosting Olympic communitiesindicate that citizens in the community tend to have increased positive attitudestowards their community as a result of hosting the Olympics. Can the same besaid of the Canada Games? Again, for Calgary, a large Canadian city, to hostthe Olympic Games, the world's most prestigious sport event, can be arguablydifferent from Halifax, a medium-sized Canadian city, hosting a CanadaGames, Canada's premier multi-sport event. Can it be inferred that becauseCalgarians had increased community spirit and pride from 1984 to 1989,communities hosting Canada Games will also have increased community spiritand pride? The case has not yet been made through the use of a well-executed study that the Canada Games can improve community spirit andpride.This claim can be said to suffer from bias to the point where allresponses could possibly be considered invalid. Only those who have long-term perspective in a community before, during, and after the Games could besaid to have sufficient experience to have a qualified opinion. Such a personwould likely be a resident of the community. A resident of that community whowas a key member of the Games family could fairly be considered to be biasedon this matter. Few persons would qualify as unbiased observers with sufficientknowledge of several Host Communities.Most persons who are questioned about the matter have positive wordsabout the effect that hosting a major national event like the Canada Games has9 0on the community. It was treated as a self-evident truth by many.Many persons spoke of increased volunteerism in the community in thesame vein as increased spirit and pride. Their reasoning seems to be thatcontinued volunteering and community pride are often linked to positiveexperiences like being involved with the Canada Games.Claims of a Legacy of Sport DevelopmentMany different kinds of claims have been made under the umbrella term"sport development" Different perspectives on regional, provincial, or nationallegacies as a result of the Canada Games have been offered.The literature indicated that the inception and continuation of the CanadaGames movement has accelerated the growth of national sport governingbodies, provincial sport governing bodies, and provincial sport ministries(Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks 1987). Some persons in the Games familyalso feel that coaching and officiating has been improved because of the highstandards expected for Canada Games coaches and officials64 . For example,by 1993, coaches in the Canada Games are to have a Level Ill technicalcertification; also, as part of the promotion of female coaches into the higherechelons of coaching responsibility, for each women's team, there must be atleast one Level Ill technically certified woman as part of the coaching staff 65 .Such expectations have been instrumental in forcing provincial sportorganizations to consider upgrading their own coaches.Respondents also felt that some of the lesser developed sports91benefitted from the facilities, personnel development, equipment, competition,management experience, and high profile that the Canada Games offers.The ResponsesTotal Sample 57Total responses 57Total: Agree 53Total: Disagree 0Total: Yes and No 4Again, there was a strong response in favour of the claim of a legacy ofsport development. Those who offered some doubts with regard to the claimdid so on the basis of concerns about circularity of reasoning. Was the CanadaGames instrumental in developing sport in Canada, or was it an outcome of thedevelopment of sport in Canada? Most respondents, though, felt there was aclear cause-and-effect relationship between the Canada Games and variousaspects of the development of sport in Canada. Also of particular note was theinterpretation of the question by each person with regard to his/her ownparticular perspective. Some interpreted the question to mean legacy to acommunity, some to the region or province, some to the nation, some to thesport, and others took a more historical perspective of the Canada Games asan element in the history of Canadian sport.92Table 11 - Responses by Groupings: Sport DevelopmentVI (12) PVI (11) NAVI (22) Total(57)Agree 23 9 21 53Disagree 0 0 0 0Yes or No 1 2 1 4Again, strong support for a claim of sport development was heard fromthose questioned.Comments from respondents offer insights:The Games are the number one vehicle in our province for sportdevelopment. It is the lever with which we promote new development,improved focus on training, increased standards for coaches, growth innew regions, (and) the need for provincial-local-regional planning. Thisoccurs every Games, not just when we're hosting. 66PSO's are often given additional funding for team developmentprograms. That money benefits not just the athletes and coaches, buthundreds of others involved in lead-up for one to three years prior. 67This of course is the major legacy of the Games...provincial associationsuse the Canada Games to focus entire developmental programs on, andthese may involve up to 5 to 10 times the number of athletes whichactually make the final Games squad. 68The opportunity exists for sport development but only if it is planned forthis emphasizing the importance of an established four yearcycle...encourages sports to develop a four year athlete developmentplan. 66The hosting of a Games may provide the catalyst for a province todevelop programs in a new or underdeveloped sport as well asencourage the further development of already well-established sports. 76New provincial sport governing bodies may develop!'Many units including the Yukon use the Canada Games as their pinnacle93of competition. These smaller provinces and territories find it difficult tosend athletes to the Olympics, and therefore these (Canada Games) aretheir "Olympics". 72The Canada Games became a priority for provinces ...promoting morehigh performance development. Athletes can be traced going fromprovincials to Canada Games to international competitions. For manyyoung athletes, it is a pivotal experience."This legacy will hopefully increase the participation by young Nativepersons in competitive sport in Canada. (He is referring to the inclusionof Native Games and Native involvement in planning for the 1993Gam esrAnother, just as important development is the inclusion in the 1993Canada Games of some disabled sports.'After the initial Games, each province more fully developed its sportministry...To compete with distinction, provinces had to develop sportprograms...Seeing Games results was an incentive for ministers toincrease sport budgets...Grassroots development occurred as ProvincialWinter and Summer Games were brought to most provinces...they weremodelled initially on the Canada Games."There was agreement that the Canada Games have been instrumental insport development, particularly at the provincial and regional level.The remaining four persons also believed that the Canada Gamessupported sport development, but that it was hard to point exactly to whichelement of sport development could be claimed as a legacy. Two persons hadparticularly noteworthy comments:What should happen is local base building: school, clubs, sport andrecreation should pull together to maximize the opportunity that theGames offers..almost the opposite happens...club people are drainedaway and exhausted, or go on to higher levels. 77It is difficult to point to an event like the Canada Games as responsiblefor any major changes in the sport system. The Canada Games aremerely an example of how sport has evolved in this country."94The latter two comments have relevance to the issue at hand and will bemore thoroughly investigated in chapter five.Other Claims of LegacyAll persons who were interviewed, or who responded through aquestionnaire, were given the opportunity to offer other reasonable legacyclaims. 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 sport7. 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 pointsnumbered one, two, and six.95Further ResponsesFurther points made by respondents include the following:1. To the question- 'Can the term 'legacy' be used in relation to the CanadaGames?'That's one of the main reasons they are held.'The word 'legacy' as it relates to the Canada Games is that of long termbenefits that are for the most part tangible in nature. The long termeffects of the Games are very positive and touch every element of theHost Community. the human development, capital development, andoverall spirit of the Games are still in evidence long after the actual twoweeks of the events are over. 81`Legacy' in relation to the Canada Games is a phrase used to sell thehosting of the Games to host municipalities, and others involved with theprocess. By looking at such areas as facilities, equipment, trust funds,human resources, memories and a unity feeling that I was a part ofsomething positive, unique and successful.'Yes, indeed 'legacy' is the key operative word which must be used by allpartners in their Mission statements regarding their rationale forparticipating in the Games. 83It is reasonable in our case to use the word 'legacy' because of thewidespread agreement that the Games have had a lasting impact inthese three areas...1. a community spirit for Saint John, 2. wonderfulfacilities, 3. a large number of volunteers who can now tackle any largeproject...The focus is mostly on the community and less on theprovince.84More work needs to be done in providing backup to the kinds ofstatements that are being made about the Canada Games.°The term 'legacy' has been used rather loosely with respect to all majorGames. It has become part of the standard speech in talking aboutGames, and could bear some careful consideration of meaning. 86With the latter comment in mind, Chapter Five will offer conclusions andimplications, and summarize the content of the study undertaken, with critical96analysis 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.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 government37. 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.9754. 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 Games64. 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.9882. VI, chef de mission.83. VI, provincial government representative.84. NAVI, academic.85. NAVI, academic.99100CHAPTER FIVESummary of Research Problem, Method and FindingsProblemThe research problem, simply stated, can be summarized in a fewquestions:1. What claims of legacy have been made concerning the CanadaGames?2. What evidence exists in support of such claims?3. Do key persons associated with the Canada Games agree with theseclaims?4. What insights into the subject of the legacies of the Canada Games anffurther researchcan be derived from the interviews and surveys?MethodThe methods used were to first review the literature to discover whichclaims were being made. Second, documents from previous Games wereexamined and reviewed to see if evidence supporting legacy claims could befound. Third, key persons associated with the Canada Games wereinterviewed in person, by telephone, or were asked to respond to a mailedquestionnaire in an attempt to detail their reactions to each claim of legacy.The sample chosen consisted of persons who may have a bias toward theCanada Games, but also consisted of persons who were less likely to be10 1biased. In interviews in person and by telephone, respondents wereencouraged to state whether they agreed or disagreed with the particular claimof legacy, and to provide a rationale for the opinion. Finally, unexpectedresponses were followed up with further interviews, enquiries, and research intoavailable materials. Further critical analysis of the findings led to theconclusions found in this chapter.FindingsFive claims of legacy are made in the literature:1. A legacy of facilities2. A legacy of equipment3. A legacy of trained officials4. A legacy of community pride and spirit5.^A legacy of sport developmentSome potential evidence can be found in support of the first two claims.The capital budget for each Canada Games has been used to build newfacilities and upgrade existing facilities. Documents prepared by each HostSociety and reports by the Federal Government have all listed improvementsundertaken since 1967 for Canada Games events. In every province ofCanada, we can point to existing facilities built for the Canada Games.Most respondents felt that we can speak of facilities as legacy of theCanada Games. Many pointed out specific examples of facilities built for theCanada Games which are still in operation. A legacy of facilities was the claim102most often cited in the literature and also generated the most comment in theinterviews. A few respondents, though, believed that we should qualify ourstatements of legacy to include:1. issues regarding the operating and maintenance costs of thesefacilities,2. the appropriateness of funding large facilities in small communities3. matching facilities to the needs of the community by means ofcompetent feasibility studies4. a re-examination of facility standards to ensure cost-effectivenessIt was felt by some that it is inadequate to list the funds spent on capitalimprovements, and the projects undertaken, as evidence of a legacy offacilities. The facilities left behind after twenty-five years of Canada Gameswould be accepted by a majority of persons as evidence of legacy, but a closeanalysis of the implications of building certain facilities might cause those samepersons to have reservations about the claim. The issues regarding on-goingoperating and maintenance costs for a large facility in a community with a smalltax base was not widely understood. The trade-offs required in acquiring thesenew facilities was best understood by community recreation directors, whospoke 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 likegymnastics equipment, track and field equipment, canoes, kayaks, sailboats,103and similar equipment cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, far beyond thereach of local sport clubs and, in many cases, of PSO's. Most persons were ofthe opinion that we can speak of sport equipment as a legacy, although a fewpersons questioned the duration of the legacy, suggesting this claim be referredto as a "short-term legacy". It should also be noted that the equipment canonly be a legacy if the Host Society decided to give it to some group after theGames. In order to make the budgets balance, a Host Society may choose tosell its assets. Finally, many respondents agreed that the legacy of sportequipment is small in comparison to that of facilities.Little direct evidence can be found for the claims of a human legacy anda sport development legacy. Most persons in the Canada Games family,though, agreed with the latter claim and several went on to add that they werethe important legacies of the Canada Games. Some would go so far to saythat legacies of sport development and community spirit and pride are the mostimportant legacies of the Canada Games.Respondents to the questionnaire and those persons who wereinterviewed agreed that there were more officials after a Games. What wasquestioned was the continuity of commitment and proficiency of these officialsfollowing a Games. A problem with implementing an officials developmentprogram is that any ongoing commitment for upgrading and supporting localofficials must be supported by PSO's within existing budgets. Large numbersof qualified officials in small communities cannot be adequately supported by104most PSO's.The strongest support for claims of community spirit and pride came fromrespondents who were hosts at a community or provincial level. A frequenttheme in interviews was how self-evident this claim was: One only needed tovisit the community before, during, and then after a Games to see the effect. Afew persons questioned the longevity of the effect. A further concern wasexpressed about our lack of evidence to support the claim. It is not the casethat we are unable to measure the effect; it has just never been done for aCanada Games.There was a wide range of specific responses concerning the claim of alegacy of sport development. The respondents believe that the Canada Gameshas played an important role in sport development on a regional, provincial, andnational scale. This claim has been supported in the literature. Difficulties arisewhen we try to pinpoint the exact relationship between policies, actions, anddecisions made around the Canada Games movement, and outcomes in thesport system. There appear to be stronger ties between Sport Canada/CanadaGames Council decisions and its effects on NSO's and provincial sportministries than on other sport groups, and yet most respondents believed thatsport development had been enhanced most directly at the regional level. Theprobable cause for this was the impact of actually hosting the Games in theregion; the immediacy of the experience may have a greater effect thanprogramming and policy decisions made at a distant location.105A concern was expressed that no formal studies have been done tosubstantiate what many believe and continue to express - the Canada Gamesmovement has been responsible for a number of legacies that justifies theefforts of various levels of government, sports agencies, and volunteers.Conclusions and Suggested Future StudiesWhen this research was first contemplated, a feature that was strikingwas the similarity in comments made by successive sport ministries, withinMinistry reports, in Host Society reports, and in speeches by advocates of theCanada Games. In chapter two, several examples were given; the content ofeach text selected contained positive commentary on the benefits of theCanada Games. The notion that the Games leaves a legacy of some sort wasa recurring theme throughout much of the literature.From a critical perspective, one might question whether each successivesport minster, sport ministry, Host Society, NSO, and any other agency thatdeals with the Canada Games over many years, had repeated the conventionalwisdom of earlier writers. One question facing any writer concerned with writinga report on the Games would be something like this: What are the benefits ofthe Games? The only sources of information would be Ministry reports,Canada Games Council reports, Provincial Ministry reports, and Host Societyreports. There is very little in the way of professional literature on the Gamesat all, and almost nothing critical in perspective. Even if the writer were to doan exhaustive search, and uncover some critical aspects to hosting a Games,106such as the problems of operating costs for an aquatic centre or the difficulty inmaintaining continuity for officials after a Games, nothing has been written witha larger critical analysis.The majority of persons who have written about the Canada Gameshave had access to material written by government employees or Host Societyvolunteers or staff, and these persons might be considered sufficiently biased toconsider such material contaminated, not objective.Another possible answer to the striking similarity in commentary on theGames could be that each writer has reflected not the conventional wisdom ofpast writers, but past research. In other words, solid research that could beverified by successive researchers had been undertaken, and since no contraryresearch had been brought forward, writers were reflecting the state ofknowledge in relation to the topic at that time. The problem with thisinterpretation, as noted earlier, is that there is no evidence of this type ofresearch in the literature.A third interpretation of the problem is that the benefits of the Games arenot founded in solid research, but are evident to those who have had a longterm commitment and experience with the Games. Two persons interviewedused 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 7and to the larger community have been different in degree, but there are someelements of commonality among successive Games, like new and improvedfacilities, improved sport development, and improved community spirit. Thesesimilarities are noted, not through scholarly research, but through observationand inference. It should be noted that the same kinds of comments have beenmade by different persons from different communities over twenty years. Eachhas recognized the benefits of the Games independently. Consideration shouldbe given to the fact that so many independent persons have all come to similarconclusions, but we should also note that bias may contaminate the weight ofthose results. It was evident that those with no apparent bias were far moresceptical of claims of legacy than the group who were potentially biased.Furthermore, in the sample of persons surveyed and interviewed, it wassomewhat apparent that few persons were aware of the depth of the issuesinvolved in considering a claim of legacy. The few persons who were quiteknowledgeable of the pitfalls in making legacy claims were, of course, moresceptical in approach.The preponderance of statements in the literature is also weightedtowards 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 ofthe Games is large, and that has been verified by many observers from manycommunities over a twenty year span.As a line of reasoning, we can note that each writer has started from108a point of bias; independent persons with no stake in the Games have beenvery 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 periodof time are government employees or sports organization personnel. Theirreports have been predominant in the literature available on the topic of theCanada Games. One cannot easily escape this material in any attempt to readabout the Canada Games.We might also question whether persons with a long-term relationship tothe Games formed these opinions having heard and read such reports early,before direct experience over several Games. It is unlikely that one can beinvolved for several Games, and withhold opinion through that time, withoutcontamination from earlier writing and other speakers. Either way, one couldcriticize that line of reasoning as faulted because of a bias.If the benefits of the Games are real, and they are as positive as themajority of persons have observed, then some scholarly research should bedone to further examine the validity of that belief. No systematic, well-researched studies have been completed to verify those beliefs. That, ofcourse, does not mean that the benefits of the Games are not real. Theconclusion must be, though, that the benefits of the Games have not beenverified through independent studies.This study has examined the claims of legacy made in the literature, andby persons in the Games family. An important point not noted by respondents10 9or in the literature, is the following distinction. The word "legacy" is often usedto justify why a particular Games is held. A number of persons have used thefollowing 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 Gamesafter the event.'The problem here is the object of the legacy. An example will help toclarify the point. The 1993 Canada Games wished to host sailing on a nearbylake. A provincial park was on one side of the lake. Technically speaking, itwas a good site, with suitable winds and on-shore facilities. Aesthetically, itwas a beautiful site, speaking well of the region to tourists, and for televisioncoverage. 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 wasthat the local sailing community called it "No legacy." The line of reasoningused 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 lakeswere available. The site would, by this reasoning, therefore be no legacy to thesport. The problem was that another sailing group in a nearby communitypreferred the park site. It could also be argued that the citizens of the HostCommunity would prefer the park site since their tax dollars were paying forimprovements, and they would prefer the less expensive site so thatimprovements could be placed in their own community. The relevant PSOsupported the use of the lake in general, seeing the development of the sport at110that site to the benefit of the larger provincial sailing community.The question to be asked then is, 'Legacy to whom?' Is the legacy forthe local sailing group, with a membership of about twenty persons? Or is it tothe larger community, with a population of one hundred thousand persons?The same point might be asked of an aquatics centre. For whom is thelegacy of the facility? The aquatics community receives the direct benefits, butthe taxpayers as a whole pay the operating expenses.It is insufficient to speak of legacies without addressing the feasibility ofthe cost-effectiveness of each decision. With a legacy of facilities, theinvestment 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 theCanada Games.Some persons question whether facilities that leave operating deficits foryears after a Games is held can still be called a legacy. The most commoncause of operating deficits are when Olympic-sized indoor pools are built insmaller communities. Every decision to allocate funds to a facility, or toequipment, or to any program is at the expense of another program. Thedecision to build an indoor aquatics centre for a summer games is a six-million-dollar decision to direct a legacy to the aquatics community, with a debt to theother citizens of the community, and at the expense of other potential facilitiesthat could have been built with those funds. A full -fledged tennis facility can be111constructed for four percent of the cost of an aquatics centre, with very fewoperating costs after the Games. With this line of reasoning, twenty-four suchfacilities can be built for the cost of one aquatics centre. For whom is this alegacy? In such a hypothetical situation, the goals of the aquatics communityare met, but the goals of the tennis community are not. Many taxpayers wouldalso argue that their goals have not been met. What about the goals of theother partners - the provincial government representing the provincial sportcommunity and the taxpayers of the province, and the federal governmentrepresenting a national set of stakeholders? Are their goals being met with aparticular decision? The point is that one must not speak merely of a legacy ofthe Games, but instead a legacy to some particular group. If an aquaticscentre is a legacy, then it is a legacy to the aquatics community locally,regionally, provincially, or perhaps nationally, and to recreational users of thefacility.As a topic for study, the Canada Games is usually studied as a part ofthe Canadian sport system as a whole. Because of this, when speaking about"legacy", the focus has largely been national in perspective. But wheninterviewed, the population spoke mainly about community, regional, orprovincial legacies, with little reference to facilities as a whole benefitting thenation. Can we generalize beyond those particular communities in which thefacilities were built to a larger sphere? Can the citizens of Canada be said tohave benefitted from these facilities? Surely direct benefits are only112evident to those persons in the community area, and to the few others fromoutside who also use the facilities. Indirectly, we might also refer to the specificsport community of the province, and less so to the nation. It seemsinappropriate to generalize beyond specific benefits to specific groups.Regional legacies are the topic of such community-oriented reports ashost society final reports and impact studies. Such reports have not reachedthe published stage, and consequently have not been well studied. Inexamining some of those documents, recurrent themes arise across manyGames, over many years. In these, the claims are often numerous anddiverse, but usually include facilities, equipment, human legacies, sportdevelopment, and sometimes economic impacts. Little work has been done tosubstantiate these claims. For example, an economic impact study for the1991 Games was undertaken2 which concluded that the economic impact ofthe 1991 Games was fifty million dollars to the Island's economy. And yetstudies like The McGill Study of the Economic Impact of the 1976 OlympicGames,1982) 3 have indicated that economic impacts on communities aredifficult to measure:The impacts on each of the reference populations...are too varied anddiverse to allow any meaningfully totalling of costs for each diversepopulation, much less a summing of each reference population'sbenefits.How can we measure the other intangible legacies? If they areunmeasurable, can we still speak meaningfully of legacies of the113Canada Games? With facilities and equipment, one can point out a cost forconstruction and/or purchase, and then, the reasoning goes, one can evaluatethe extent of the legacy by using the total funds expended as our measure.This argument, of course, does not account for additional costs afterconstruction and/or purchase.The notion of a "negative legacy" of operating costs seems to beprimarily centred on indoor aquatic centres. In 1990, a study was done(Johnson 1990) where indoor fifty metre pools with a diving tank in Canadawere examined for annual operating deficits. The average annual operatingdeficit was found to be in the range of six hundred thousand dollars.Communities are required to match federal and provincial contributions tocapital 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 thecapital costs are operating costs and costs of this nature are in perpetuity, withthe capital cost contributions from third parties equalled and surpassed by localtax-based expenditures within seven years. Some facilities have even beenrefitted at great cost just to reduce the operating deficit in the long term. Anindoor aquatic centre is a positive legacy only if the community can afford andcan justify the dent in civic revenues for years to come.This study made reference to various sources in the literature whichconsider the Canada Games as a successful institution of federal-provincial114cooperation in the development of sport in Canada. These sources list sportdevelopment and facilities development as the prime legacies of the Games.Macintosh, Bedecki, and Franks (1987) place the Canada Games within thecontext of the larger goals of the federal government, with particular referenceto high performance and socio-economic and political goals, like national unity.Was sport development and facility construction part of these goals? Or werethey unintended outcomes of the birth of the Canada Games?The first answer concerning facilities would appear to be somewhatobvious. Some persons believe that high performance can only be achieved byproviding domestic facilities of national calibre. By building these facilitiesacross Canada, the goal of improving the performance of Canadians ininternational circles might be achieved. Some would even say that the FederalGovernment has used the Canada Games movement to build athletic facilitiesin each province of Canada. Twelve cities in Canada, in ten provinces, can besaid to have a legacy of sport facilities.Two of the respondents questioned whether building large sport facilitiesin small communities was a sound investment of funds. The line of reasoningused approximated the following:1. Large facilities like aquatics centres consume large amounts ofcapital funding, lessening available funding for smaller projects tomeet a wider population base.2. Facilities like aquatics centres require large amounts of revenue to115balance operating and maintenance losses.3. With a smaller population base, small communities cannotgenerate the revenue necessary to balance the budget. Taxationof the smaller number of citizens is then required to balance thebudget. The costs per capita are burdensome.4. Therefore building large facilities like aquatics centres in largercommunities is more cost-effective. Furthermore, publicaccountability is better served since the facility will serve a largernumber of users.Such arguments have not been widely expressed, but should be sharedas powerful warnings to those who offer facile arguments of legacy, and alsobear careful examination by those responsible for policy decisions for theCanada Games.A further problem relates to the term "Canada Games standards". Thesestandards are measures of facilities to which hosts for national competitionsshould comply. For a softball facility, base line distances, infield areas andmaterials, fence heights, and lighting standards would all be specified. Inmany cases, there is a correspondence between the written standard and animprovement that is useful for the community. National level standards, though,may set facilities in small communities that have little correspondence to theneeds of the local population. Multi-sport games have constructed a number oftechnically-correct facilities which are put in place because of these standards,116regardless of whether there is a local population to support its ongoingoperation and use. A large high-performance facility normally requires a largeuser-base to support and justify its on-going use. The argument is often giventhat the sport community will grow into the facility. If we were to accept thatargument, the question still remains : Can we call a facility a legacy if thecommunity is not yet ready to use it? In addition, there are specific instanceswhere a facility has fallen into disuse after a Games - such as a baseball facilityin New Brunswick and the velodrome in Montreal.A related problem is that the community is often prompted to constructfacilities that are not really fundamental to the competition, but enhance thecompetition. Some of these facilities are useful for high-level competitionpurposes, or for high-performance training, but are not well-used by any but afew elite athletes, or for hosting. A good example is the construction of a tenmetre diving tower. It has been argued that the number of elite athletes whocan effectively use this costly improvement in a small community hardly justifiesthe capital expenditure, nor the ensuing operating costs. As a cost-savingmeasure, both Saint John and Kamloops chose to build one and three metreboard, and a five metre tower, but no ten metre tower.Another questionable legacy claim with facilities relates to upgradingexisting facilities. Some venues are upgraded to a level that better suitsnational competition, but have questionable legacy effect, being short-term, orcosmetic in nature. Venues that are fit-out, that is temporarily converted to117Games venues, cannot be called a legacy of the Games in the normal sense ofthe word.When speaking of legacies of the Canada Games, and facilities are usedan example of a legacy, it is important for the user to cite specific examples ofa positive legacy. These examples should meet criteria of cost-effectiveness,appropriateness to community needs, effectiveness of use after the Games foran appreciable period of time, and be free of negative impacts on thecommunity. That facility could then more justifiably be referred to as a legacyof a particular Canada Games. The problem, though, is that such examplesare used to provide a larger statement of legacies across all Games. In otherwords, claims have been generalized from a few good examples to include allfacilities. Unfortunately, not all facilities fit easily into the legacies argument.Sport development claims are abundant, but a little harder to pigeon-hole. Did the Canada Games spur sport development at a national level, orwere they both outcomes of larger political and economic forces? It is beyondthe scope of this study to provide an in-depth study of this question. It wouldseem more reasonable, though, to claim that sport development at theprovincial level can be said to be a legacy of the Canada Games. If sportassociations were begun as that sport became part of the Canada Gamesprogram, fairly clear evidence might be said to exist. Such relationships wouldprovide clearer potential evidence of legacy. A potentially fruitful study mightcome from examining the incorporation of PSO's in each province and118comparing their development with the sports chosen for each Games. Equallyinteresting might be to examine the development of sport ministries and sub-units with Canada Games developments.Other legacy claims are more closely related to the Host Communitiesthemselves. For up to five years a city dedicates a considerable amount of itsresources to hosting the Games. The reports they write following a CanadaGames are the by-product of an immersion program - few might know what theCanada Games does for the Host Community more than those few individualswho prepared the bid, structured the Society, staffed the office, planned for fouryears, executed the operation, and reflected thereafter. The reports of HostSocieties must be considered valuable tools for coming to grips with the notionof legacy. The problems with these reports is that they are largely anecdotal innature. Aside from the fiduciary function, little data supporting the notion oflegacy can be said to reside in these reports. A longitudinal study assessingbid communities in the earliest stages would provide interesting comparativedata with which to work, especially if measures could also be applied to thatcommunity following a Games.Implications Proponents of the Canada Games movement use the term "legacy" aspart of the justification for continuing to hold the Games. Since the earlynineteen seventies, legacy claims have been put forward, mostly fromgovernments and Host Societies. Because of the complexity and potential119inaccuracy of generalizing across all Games, what those who speak of theGames must do, though, is to more clearly specify, and in some cases, delimitlegacy claims, and in particular to indicate which item is claimed as a legacy forwhom and for which particular Games. To say, "The Canada Games TennisCentre built with capital funds from the three partners is a legacy for the sportcommunity of Kamloops", will create far fewer problems of substantiation thanto say, "The 1993 Canada Games are responsible for a legacy of facilities inB.C." Too often proponents of the Canada Games have generalized aboutclaims of legacy, and consequently have oversimplified the question of thevalue of the Canada Games. The problems of over-generalizing about legaciescan be applied to all three groups of claims: facilities and equipment, a humanlegacy, and a sport development legacy. For example, in the case of a claimof a facilities legacy, caution must be shown with the upgrading of facilitiessince minor upgrades may not be universally accepted as being a legacy. Topdressing a field has limited "legacy" value. Another major caution has alreadybeen detailed. A facility that leaves a burden of operating deficits may bequestioned for its positive legacy. In the case of a legacy of officials, there isno clear evidence to point to numbers, or of the longevity of the legacy. Morework 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 anegligible amount of equipment. A few stopwatches, and some used ballswould not constitute strong evidence for legacy. In the cases of sailing,120canoeing, gymnastics, and track and field, a clearly visible set of equipmentmay be present as evidence of legacy. The lifespan of the equipment may alsorelegate this legacy claim into the realm of a "short-term legacy". Again, it isbetter to say, "A legacy of gymnastics equipment has been the result of havinghosted the 1991 Canada Games," than to claim that sport equipment in generalis a legacy. In the case of sport development, anecdotal evidence from keyindividuals, and within the literature strongly support the notion of a legacy ofsport 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, regionalnetworking of sport and recreation groups, sport administrator development,hosting experience, increased funding for sport, and others. Individuals whomake 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 belittle disagreement that there is this effect. The only caution is the magnitude ofthe effect. There seems to be strong opinion that in the case of Saint John andSt. John's, the effect was strongly positive. Would the same effect be felt inWinnipeg or Hamilton? Some claim that the smaller the community, the moreimpact the Canada Games has. One piece of wisdom expressed by severalpersons3 is that the size of the Games must fit the size of the city. TheOlympics fit Calgary. The Canada Games might not be successful in a city the12 1size of Vancouver. The event may very well be successful by many standards,but the impact on the community would be slight. Community spirit and pridecan only be enhanced if the Canada Games is one of the biggest sport eventsever 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 perceptionof an event like the Canada Games, whereas controversy and criticism tends todampen spirit and pride.Claims of community spirit and pride are supported largely by anecdotalevidence. There has been little attempt to systematically measure thecommunity's perception of a Games. The Olympic Research Group monitoredresident's awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of a number of factorsrelated to the Calgary Olympics (Ritchie and Lyons 1989) in a period from 1983to 1989. A study of this sort to monitor a Canada Games would offer strongersupport for claims of community spirit and pride, or do the opposite.The longevity of the effect can also be called into question. Conventionalwisdom in the field sets the limit at fifteen years. Numbers like these stem frominformal studies done on bigger Games. It seems reasonable to assume thatthe length of the effect would rely on how important the Games was to thatcommunity. Each instance, then, would be different. The effect in Saint Johnwould be different from Winnipeg. An interesting study might result out of sucha comparison.122Further studies that focussed on collection of data may strengthen theclaims of proponents of the Canada Games. For example, Sport Canada isattempting to correct some gender inequities in sport. For upcoming CanadaGames, the ratio of female coaches, and their calibre is expected to risebecause the Canada Games Council is raising the provincial quotas andcertification required. Over a period of time, will claims of legacy arise out ofsuch efforts? Has the Canada Games been instrumental in promoting genderequity? Consistent data collection will be needed to substantiate such claims.It would be quite appropriate for the bodies responsible for the CanadaGames to encourage and implement longitudinal data collection over severalGames. People in the Games family believe that the Canada Games legaciesare real and ongoing. The literature generally supports such beliefs.Systematic, long-term data collection might strengthen legacy claims, and quitepossibly the place of the Games in Canadian society.A few individuals questioned the role of the Canada Games in theCanadian sport system:1. Is the cost of the Canada Games worth the investment? Can themoney be invested more wisely?2. Is the capital expenditure program being planned in a cost-effective manner?3.^Have a few sports consumed an out-of-proportion amount of fundsat the expense of other sports?1234. Can governments plan for facility construction in a more efficientmanner?5. What should be the place of the Canada Games within the sportsystem?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 otherprograms?10.^Is funding adequate to meet the existing goals and objectives ofthe Canada Games?Within the most recent policy document on sport from the FederalGovernment, Sport the Way Ahead, The Report of the Minister's Task Force on Federal Government Sport Policy (Ottawa: May, 1992), the following statementis 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 ofhosting international multi-sport events must be undertaken. Though an entirechapter is dedicated to hosting multi-sport Games, and recommendations aremade for future policy, the Canada Games was not part of thatrecommendation. In fact, in the three hundred and ten page document, the124Canada Games receives only a few positive comments in passing. As one ofthe Federal Government's largest on-going projects, it would seem unnaturalthat it doesn't seem to receive the same kind of overt critical review which otherprograms face.The study undertaken here was not designed to cast doubts on therelative worth of the Canada Games. It did, however, question the kind ofrhetoric that has been used to justify the Canada Games. The Games are, inthe opinion of this researcher, a highly valuable part of the Canadian sportsystem. Clearer thinking and more prudent commentary on the benefits of theCanada 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 discussiionsof legacy.2 . Cited in FAS, Sport the Way Ahead 1992.3. Stothart, J. in an interview and others.BibliographyAndrews, Ian. "Canada Games Manual." Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness andAmateur Sport, 1975a.^. "An Examination of the Administration, Facility Development, andFinancing of the 1973 Canada Summer Games." Ottawa: unpublished thesison 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 Costsfor 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: CapherSociology of Sport Monograph Series, 1978.Business Institute. "1991 Canada Winter Games - Economic ImpactAssessment." 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 AmateurSport. Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1979.^. Report of the Task Force on Sports for Canadians. Ottawa: QueensPrinter, 1969.125126^. "Sportfuture, An Address by the lona Campagnolo to the CNESports 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 Conferencein Victoria, British Columbia, November 24, 1990." Ottawa: unpublishedminutes, 1990.Canada Games Council. "Canada Games Handbook: An Outline of Policies andOrganizational Procedures." Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and AmateurSport, 1975.^. "Report by the Canada Games Review Committee to theHonorable lona Campagnolo." Ottawa: Ministry of State, Fitness and AmateurSport, 1977.^. "Canada Games Handbook." revised edition, Ottawa: Ministry ofState, Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1985.127^. "Overview of the Canada Games." unpublished report made by theCanada Games Council, Technical Committee, Ottawa: 1990.1969 Canada Summer Games Society. "Final Report - 1970." unpublishedreport, 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 Kamloops1993 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 andPolicies Toward Sport and Culture in Canada: A Comparison." In Sport and theSociological Imagination, edited by N. Theberge and P. Donnelly, Fort Worth:Texas Christian University Press, 1984.Gairdner, William D. The Trouble with Canada. Toronto: Stoddart PublishingCompany, 1990.Galasso, P.J. "The Involvement of the Canadian Federal Government in Sportand 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, 1992.128Halifax Canada Summer Games. "First Canada Summer Games - FinalReport." Halifax: unpublished report, 1970.Harvey, Jean and Hart Cantelon, ed. Not Just a Game. Ottawa: University ofOttawa 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 PoolAlternatives." 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: unpublishedreport, 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." InNot Just a Game by Jean Harvey and H. Cantelon, Ottawa: University ofOttawa 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 andMontreal, McGill-Queen's University Press, 1989.129McLaughlin, 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. "FinalReport." Burnaby: unpublished report, 1974.Pooley, John C. and A. V. Webster. "Sport and Politics: Power Play." InCAHPER, Jan.-Feb., 1975.Porter, B. and J. Cole, Chairmen, Sub Committee on Fitness and AmateurSport. "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 ofResident Reaction to the XV Olympic Winter Games." In Journal of Travel Research, Winter 1990.Saint John 1985 Canada Summer Games Society, Inc. "Final Report." SaintJohn: unpublished report, 1985.. "1977 Canada Summer Games Report." Ottawa:Canada, 1978.^ ."1985 Jeux Canada Games Aquatics Centre." SaintJohn: 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 FacilityReport." Saskatoon: unpublished report, 1992.Schrodt, B. "Changes in the Governance of Amateur Sport in Canada." InCanadian 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, 1984.130Thunder Bay 1981 Jeux Canada Summer Games Society. "Policies andProcedures Manual: Finance and Administration.",Thunder Bay: unpublishedreport, 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, andDissertations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.West, J. Fitness, Sport and the Canadian Government. Ottawa: Fitness andAmatuer Sport Branch, 1973.131APPENDIX ONE Canada Games Research QuestionnaireThe purpose of the study is to determine what meaningwe can give to the word "legacy" as it applies to the CanadaGames.Operational definition of legacy - something positive thatis 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 CanadaGames?2. What claims of legacy can be reasonably made?3. Writers have made certain claims of legacy. Pleaserespond to each:a. A legacy of sport facilities ^b. A legacy of sport equipment ^132c. 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 madeabout the legacy of the Canada Games?133Name of respondant ^Position ^Please mail or fax this response to: Doug Smith, VP (Sport)1993 Canada Games Society604 - 374-5617134APPENDIX TWOLIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED'POSITION2President, Canada Games CouncilGames Consultant, FASDirector (Sport and Recreation), NewfoundlandPresident, 1985 Canada GamesChef de Mission, YukonChef de Mission, Prince Edward IslandChef de Mission, Newfoundland and LabradorCity Administrator, City of SaskatoonUniversity of British ColumbiaAssistant Deputy Minister, Alberta Rec. and ParksChef de Mission, Albertaformer Assistant Deputy Minister, OntarioPEI 1991 Canada Games SocietyDirector, Provincial Rec. Programs, OntarioChef de Mission, ManitobaAssistant Deputy Minister, New BrunswickPresident, Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyPresident, Cape Breton 1987 Canada GamesCanada Games Council; Director of Finance - FASChef de Mission, SaskatchewanVice President, Saskatchewan 1989 Canada GamesChef de Mission, New BrunswickRecreation Director, Thunder BayRecreation Director, BrandonGeneral Manager, Kamloops 1993 Canada GamesUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of VictoriaPresident, Kamloops 1993 Canada Games SocietyCanada Games CouncilRecreation Director, City of KamloopsVice President, Kamloops 1993 Canada GamesNAMEJack PelechAndre GallantSandy HickmanRichard OlandTom O'HaraTed LawlorJim TeeMarty IrwinDr. Eric BroomR.M. FinnertyNoni HeineBob SecordDave McNeillGerry KerrRick LambertJim MorrellPeter LeasuxDr. C. R. BuchananGord PetersLyle HayesCatherine GrybaSuzanne CoffeyMargaret TbompsenVic BrownJohn StothartDr. John JacksonDr. Roger JacksonVic PoleschukDon JohnsonDennis KujatCharles Bruce1. The list is partial, reflecting prominent persons in the 'Games family' who had given permission to be quoted, byvirtue 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