Documents 2026

May 2026 Minutes

Semi-Annual General Meeting 

Date: Tuesday, May 12th

Time: 4:00PM Pacific Standard Time
Location: Online

In Attendance:

Universities: Brock, Carleton, Dalhousie, McGill, McMaster, Ontario Tech, Queens, Simon Fraser, Trent University, University of British Columbia, University of Calgary, University of Guelph, University of Saskatchewan, University of Toronto, University of Victoria, University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario

Mary Rao, Katie Bruggeling, Ed Fournier, Maddy Horne, Stephane Marchand, Myma Okuda-Rayfuser, Jennifer Durward, Scott Feddery, Katie Edwards, Kristin Henry, Shelley Adair, Mike Pearce, Craig Pond, Amilie Shumacher, Pearl Schachter, Richard Paterson, Mark Williams, Jane Gumley, Albert Van Schothorst, Daniel Bechard, Matthew Waddell

1. Call to Order

   1. President welcome and introductions

2. Establish Quorum

Quorum established

3. Approval of the Agenda 

ZL 

MP second

4. Approval of Previous Meeting’s Minutes

   1. Business arising from the minutes

SM approves

ZL second

5. Executive Reports

   1. President – D. Bechard

• Brief overview of strat plan, what we have mainly been going over

• 2027 UBC hosting CURCs

2. VP, Eligibility – J. Durward

• Not a whole lot of communication at this time of year

• Eligibility rosters, remember the draft and the final version are separate. The final version needs to be signed

3. VP, CURC – Z. Lewis

• Overview on CURCs hosting, Western in 2026 and out west in 2027

• Another ask for hosting or co-hosting for 2028

4. Secretary – J. Gumley

• One proposal received

• Continue to send email updates/changes to jgumley@uvic.ca

5. Past President – K. Edwards

• Two of the five VP CURCs and VP eligibility will be up again to be voted for in November

6. Standing Committee Reports 

   1. FISU Subcommittee - M. Pearce

      1. updates

• Successful in building out crews

• There has been more of a handover from RCA to the FISU committee. 

• M 4- and 1x out of UBC, Women’s group out of St.Catherines and Montreal, also hosting a M2x

• We have a selection doc that will mostly be used for next year as well, so you can start preparing athletes for next year

2. confirm current committee members 

• Katie Bruggeling, mary Rao, zack Lewis, Jane Gumley, chuck, mike Pearce, mark williams

3. fill in vacant spots  

2. Eligibility committee - J. Durward

   1. updates

• No new updates

2. confirm current committee members 

• Craig pond, scott feddery, Jenn Durward

3. fill in vacant spots  

3. Governance committee - M. Waddell

   1. updates

• No proposals and nothing to report on

2. confirm current committee members 

3. fill in vacant spots  

4. Playing Regs committee - Mary Buchanan

   1. updates

• One proposal that will be discussed later

2. confirm current committee members 

3. fill in vacant spots  

7. Regional Updates 

   1. Atlantic – Maddy Horne

• 4 schools at the Atlantic university championships

• Large mens team from St.Marys, teams are growing

• Hurdle for Dalhousie - their club is eliminating their rowing program

2. Central – Scott Feddery

• Cold winter, lots of programs got on the water late

• May 2nd there was a U of T and McGill challenge regatta - the 100th anniversary

• Joint scrimmage between Queens and Western on May 2nd as well

• Trent, Western, Brock, Queens all attended Dadvaile regatta

3. Prairies – Amelie Schumacher 

• UART had one of the most success seasons since covid - joining the Edmonton rowing club over the summer and will be training there to prep for the fall season. 

• USask has 12 athletes over the winter season - fully funded athlete program 

• Dinos - Jan recruitment of 25 novices. 80-90 athletes. Will be training with calgary rowing over the summer

4. Coastal – Mike Pearce

• Elk lake spring regatta got blown out

• 33rd Brown Cup regatta this year hosted in Victoria

• Continues to grow and is attracting local businesses to sponsor

• UBC men heading down to sacramento

• SFU continues to grow - has been given two 8+’s and looking to build up the roster there

• UBC looking forward to hosting WCURCs on Oct 3rd

8. Unfinished Business 

   1. Weigh-In & Test Scales

      1. Proposal - M. Waddell

SF - question on the quality of scale and how the scales are calibrated

MW - umpires should be calibrating the scales and the organizing committee should be collaborating with the umpires

MP - in BC we borrow scales from rowing BC. The idea is that we could use those two and then a third cheap scale?

MW - the idea would be to ensure that all the scales weigh the same with the same test weight

MP - clarifying that there is no push for three of the same scales

MW - yes, not looking to change the calibration process, just requesting another scale

2. Subcommittee Recommendation - M. Buchanan

3. Executive Recommendation - D. Bechard

4. Voting

Proposal passed

9. New Business

   1. CURCs Strategic Plan 

      1. Update - Z. Lewis

      2. Discussion - open (moderated by K. Edwards)

ZL - looking at a 10 year timeline, The primary focus of the Canadian University Rowing Championships (CURCs) will continue to be to crown an annual Canadian national championship school. 

1. Autonomy in Standards: CURC boat classes do not need to align perfectly with World Rowing; we prioritize what serves the Canadian university landscape best.

2. Capacity Building: The regatta structure must allow programs—regardless of current size—to build depth and institutional capacity.

3. Enhanced Competition: Increasing head-to-head racing opportunities is a primary goal to improve the experience for athletes and spectators alike.

4. Balanced Athlete Development: Both sculling and sweeping events are essential for developing the "full athlete."

Strategic Priority Rankings & Context

Primary Focuses - 

1. Weight Class Transition (Moving away from Lightweight)

The shift toward openweight rowing is driven by a number of factors: 

• RCA Rule Changes: Starting in 2028, 1st and 2nd-year athletes under 19 cannot compete as lightweights, potentially reducing eligible rosters by half overnight.

• International Alignment: This aligns with FISA racing opportunities and national team carding, which effectively ceased for lightweights after 2024. Canada is one of only a few remaining countries that supports weight class rowing at the collegiate level. 

• Declining Depth: Data shows U23 and Senior lightweight categories are becoming shallower annually, with fewer entries and significant speed drops after top finishers.

• Competitive Parity: Performance differences are often marginal; at the most recent CURCs, the lightweight double would have won the open event. Current world M1x champion and Tokyo Olympic champion Ntouskos moved from lightweight to openweight international racing. 

• Athlete Protection: An "off-ramp" phase will be implemented for athletes who have already selected institutions based on current lightweight opportunities and team dynamics. Including the LWT 1x as part of the open 1x event for the off ramp period. 

Discussion

MW - pushing back and offering alternative viewpoints on the lightweight piece. Was a former lightweight, over the last 8 years hopefully gotten a good representation of someone who has a voice. Was keenly interested in the recommendations and has some recommendations. 

RCA rule change - the main stance behind that rule was to protect young athletes from weight restricted categories. Athlete protection can happen within weight restrictions

International alignment - autonomy and standards, we don’t need to perfectly match world rowing standards

Declining depth - would be interested to see the data from other regattas (henley ex), Lightweight 1x and 2x events typically have the same or more entries than open weight 2x or 1x events. 

Competitive parity - given the open 2x isn’t a banner event, it doesn’t give a reliable direct comparison. The lightweight M/W 1x’s do have a large time gap between open and lightweight categories 

Is there a case to be made at looking at a reduction of lightweight events? I would be open to looking at reducing the number of lightweight events. Outright elimination, no. 

MW - Agrees with a lot of Mark's comments there and the observations. Speaking not on behalf of the committee - in the absence of a national team pathway, it's currently really difficult to articulate what the purpose of lightweight rowing at the national championships is. If it is going to exist, then we have to clearly state why we are keeping it. Doesn’t like the slow fade of eliminating boat classes. 

KB - agrees with Mark's points. Would like to challenge those who are former openweights and put themselves in the shoes of the lightweights and listen to them. It is a matter of inclusion and a matter of if they will be there or if people of a certain stature can compete. Last year's championships, 42% of the athletes were lightweights. Entries over the last 10 years there have only been 1.7% decline in comparison to openweight. At the Canadian university level, there hasn’t been a change in depth. If we get to the point where there are no entries in the events then it would be time to eliminate. There is still lightweight rowing in the UK, in Europe, USA, etc. 

Asking a few things: if there’s a way to make things more athlete driven, and consider the athletes opinion, that would be recommended. There was recently a letter submitted to the strategic planning committee from the athletes. The athlete's voice should be considered. Thinks there needs to be pushback on the RCA rule for U19 because it was supposed to be for junior rowing, not university rowing

AVS - requesting that we formally figure out whether or not there can be an exemption of this rule. It is legal to vote at the age of 18, thinking they should be able to decide if they want to row lightweight or not. Strongly against full exclusion of lightweights. May be in a position where smaller kids will stop rowing with the RCA rule change. Challenge us as an organization to advocate for the U19 lightweight kids. Of the mind that we continue for lightweight rowing - UVIC mrow wants to advocate for his athletes. It is very important that the athletes' voices are solicited in a thoughtful and meaningful way. The assumption is that the coaches are speaking on their behalf

KH - fully echo AVS comments. It is important for athletes to have a way to share their voices. Impartial to the whole lightweight discussion. It is important to somehow create a survey or space for student athletes to be heard that isn’t just a check box. As long as they are heard, they can be more at peace with decisions that impact them. It can’t just be a coaches discussion, it does need to be bigger with the athletes that are impacted

SA - feel that we need to pump the breaks and listen to the voices of the people around the table and particularly the athletes voices. What is our purpose of university sport, and what do we want to accomplish for them while at university. Going back to autonomy of standards, we don’t need to align but the first thing we go back to is the U19 RCA rule. Trent stands with keeping lightweight rowing. 

MP - week keep subdividing and are being left behind. We’re fundraising for lightweight and heavyweight boats. We’ve been able to move lightweights into the heavyweight program with success. We keep the lightweight group very small, other than CURCs. We get the discussion around inclusion wrong too. You need leverage and high V02 to row. We need to talk about performance. The states have killed us in terms of growth. Their JV level is way higher. If we move away from lightweight vs heavyweight the competitiveness of the regatta would increase. There are a lot of efficiency gains to be made by making our teams open instead of subdividing our efforts into open and lightweights

TH - if we do move away from lightweight rowing, would we support a 2V boat? Overall, waterloo is in favour of continuing with lightweight

ZL - there was a letter received by the student athletes about a week ago - after the memorandum was put out. It will be looked at more closely

2. Growth and Capacity Building

We aim to expand rowing participation at the university level by introducing more schools to our sport and ensuring attending schools can bring deeper, more complete rosters. We are looking for intra- and inter-school expansion to provide more opportunities for athletes and coaches. Increasing funding opportunities, providing more competition, developing more paid coaching roles. While much of this growth will come from alignment with our RCA and our respective NSOs, CURA’s goal is to create a competitive pathway that allows small schools to become medium-sized, and medium schools to become large, from both a participation and performance quality perspective.

• Meaningful Racing: We are creating championship schedule opportunities that serve as competitive stepping stones, providing meaningful racing for programs at all levels. e.g : exploring the addition of development events worth zero banner point to allow smaller schools to race against athletes at a similar development level rather than only top varsity boats.

• Internal Motivation: For established programs, these events provide athletes further down the depth chart with meaningful championship experience and a goal to strive for as they develop into top-level competitors.

• League Longevity: Ensuring the breadth of our league ensures long-term sustainability; a wider participation base ultimately produces more high performers at the top end of the sport.

• Quality Control Considerations: We must ensure that increasing participation does not dilute the quality of racing or allow top athletes to avoid racing one another by spreading across too many events.

• Scope of Influence: The committee acknowledges that the regatta’s capacity to directly impact the growth of the sport is limited. While we strive to structure the format to promote growth opportunities for participating institutions, we recognize that broad growth initiatives must be driven by our national and provincial sport organizations

Discussion

MW - meaningful racing opportunities - likes introducing JV or 2V events. Would we be wary of adding boats worth zero points. Would hate to see us put things into the schedule that don’t contribute to championships. 

KB - this point is spot on. Considering events, JV (non point scoring). Those people would not cross over into other events. The problem with the large gaps is the overlapping athletes in the schedule. This is a great way to include more people and have more racing and help with the overall cost of the event without diluting the competition. Considering sculling in it is great as well.

AVS - what we struggle with at UVIC is advocating for assistant coaches with a team of 14 people at the national championships. Within the framework of growing our sport in a meaningful way, it is our responsibility to increase the growth. We need a big enough roster to support assistant coaches. An increased roster size gets us to the point where we need a paid assistant coach. 

3. Increasing Sculling Seats at the Championships

While we seek to increase sculling opportunities, the committee is mindful of the practical risks of over-specialization and talent dilution.

• Maintaining Unity: We aim to avoid internal divisions within boathouses (e.g., a "sculling team" vs. a "sweep team" or “openweight” vs “lightweight” teams) to ensure programs remain unified.

• Elite Sculling Focus: Sculling seats are designed to support the top end of the talent pool in each program. Athletes hoping to pursue national team sculling goals should ideally be in the top quartile of their school's respective varsity program. This ensures the event remains prestigious and limits the dilution of programs away from their "eight-first" focus.

• Strategic Event Inclusion: Establishing a tiered championship structure to increase seats without diluting the top end of the sport. E.g - inclusion of a JV boat category, that is not points scoring, allow for development opportunities within the regatta without distracting from the highest calibre of competitors. 

• Big Boat Priority: The Eight remains the priority boat and the primary target for all institutions. These new sculling opportunities are designed to supplement, not replace, the focus on the Eight.

Discussion

AVS - adding a jv 8+ for half points opens up competition for developing schools. They want a meaningful chance for people to race at their own speeds. If we can create more events that give developing athletes a space to race in meaningful racing then we should take that. 

KB - consider as a factor - one way to create meaningful racing is to make sure more schools are competing in the points process. Departments pay attention when they rank well at races. Are we making the goal further away? Traditionally you had to enter a varsity event to be allowed to enter a JV event. 

MP - there’s an important balance to be struck to find the meaningfulness of races. JV inclusion could do that, but don’t want to do that in a way that only allows certain programs to fill the roster. That would be a problem. Building up roster sizes that are within reach for a programs ability to grow to that size would be a great goal, while also working to build out meaningful competition

AVS - agrees with Katie - however, there’s a way to make the regatta more viable with more bodies at the regatta. Looking to bring extra bodies to take the stress off the viabilities of the event. 

SM - the banquet piece - there were about 700 people at the banquet, if the team fees change then the banquet shouldn’t be an issue. Finding space to host more than 1000 people would be difficult. Medium size program - hiring freeze currently at McGill. JV addition wouldn’t change anything, however, including the JVs would be great. If we define what JV means, it could be a nice piece of addition. 

Secondary Focuses for Consideration - 

Note: The following priorities were reviewed by the planning committee and acknowledged during the review process but were deemed secondary priorities compared to those formerly mentioned. 

4. Increasing Roster Sizes

This will be done in conjunction with the number of events and seats available. While the quality of racing at CURCs is paramount, we will encourage larger rosters where opportunities arise to increase participation without watering down the level of competition. It is understood that increasing roster limits without specific targets and guidelines can jeopardise the efficacy of a best-on-best regatta. 

5. Mixed Gender Events

The committee acknowledges that FISA is increasingly incorporating mixed-gender events, in part to promote gender parity in our sport, to increase boat categories without increasing roster sizes, and create competitive opportunities for non-binary and gender-fluid rowers.

• Current Alignment and Equity: CURA currently aligns with U Sports policy, which allows competitors to self-identify at the start of the season and compete in their respective categories. It is noted that while mixed events are often used globally to promote gender equity and teamwork, the current CURC structure already addresses these goals by maintaining strict parity between Men’s and Women’s events.

• Participation and Visibility: By providing an equal number of events and opportunities for both genders, the existing format successfully supports participation and the visibility of women's sport without the immediate necessity of mixed-gender categories.

• Operational and Scoring Challenges: A significant complication remains regarding the awarding of points to gender-specific banners (Men’s and Women’s), which are the primary focus of the championship standings and the current scoring infrastructure.

6. Including Para Events

The committee supports this in theory and acknowledges the current lack of opportunities for Para athletes in Canadian university rowing. However, it was determined that efforts are currently better spent on more pressing structural topics for this specific review phase.

Discussion for points 4, 5 and 6

MP - played around a bit with mixed racing at UBC. It would be really interesting to add it in. 

SF - question around the recourse around the directive that RCA brought forward with the U19 decision. Who can tackle that, and what is the process in which that would happen. Around the lightweight piece, if we were to eliminate, what would it be replaced with? It could change the way people and athletes think about this change. 

DB - as this info goes back to the committee, what kind of changes do we make to continue to make, remember that there’s always two sides of the coin. Listen and consider the other side. Increasing roster size has a lot of repercussions, increased costs in trailers, hotels, flights, banquets, etc. We are taking our time to make the right decisions. Ask to continue to work together to help make changes that go 10 to 20 years down the road. 

10. Adjournment

MW moving to adjourn

AVS second