Quebec hockey model faces harsh review in wide‑ranging new study

A new survey of 4,500 people led by Jocelyn Thibault and researcher Jean Lemoyne is casting serious doubt on the current structure of hockey development in Quebec. Conducted since June as part of a consultation mandate from Hockey Québec, the study shows fragile confidence in the provincial federation, its regional branches and the Maritimes–Quebec junior league (LHJMQ).

Low satisfaction and shaky trust in leadership

Presenting the results, Jean Lemoyne, a professor in the Department of Physical Activity Sciences at Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, noted that only 11% of respondents are satisfied with Quebec’s hockey model. Another 37% say they are dissatisfied, while 53% describe themselves as ambivalent.

Trust in decision-makers at Hockey Québec and in regional structures also appears limited. Just 36% of those surveyed say they trust these leaders. The criticism targets both the overall direction of development and how the different stages of the player pathway are managed across the province.

Winning pressure and doubts about the path to the NHL

Among respondents looking at the 12‑to‑17 age group, a clear majority feel there is too much focus on winning. In all, 71% consider the emphasis on results to be a problem. More broadly, 64% say the current model does not do enough to support the overall development of young people beyond what happens on the ice.

Concerns about the competitive structure also emerge. A total of 57% believe the level of competition is too diluted, which they say hampers the progression of top prospects. The transitional steps to higher levels are questioned as well: only 48% think Quebec’s M18 AAA development league adequately prepares players for the LHJMQ, and just 24% feel the LHJMQ gets its athletes ready for the NHL.

Push toward a more holistic development approach

For former NHL goaltender and ex–Hockey Québec general manager Jocelyn Thibault, one of the key takeaways is the gap between parents’ perceptions and expert opinion on what truly fosters development. Lemoyne points to “red flags” where parental views diverge from evidence-based answers, suggesting the federation will have to communicate more clearly on these issues.

Supported by a 12‑person committee drawn from across the hockey ecosystem, Thibault held consultations across Canada and the United States and is now planning a trip to Finland with Lemoyne to study other systems. The group intends to put greater emphasis on holistic player development between ages 12 and 20, expanding the focus beyond team results and tactical systems.

Among the priority files are player classification, pressure on young athletes, early specialization, new teaching methods in hockey and a revamped competition model at the U13 and U15 levels. Thibault stresses that the goal is not to tear everything down, but to introduce realistic, impactful changes backed by performance indicators. Some measures could be in place as early as the fall of 2027, while others will require more time before they are fully rolled out.