in the US, much of this, particularly reporting requirements, is covered by the US Sailing Regulations at:
https://www.ussailing.org/about/our-organization/#resources-block and in particular Article 15.
As the Larry Nassar scandal was unfolding, the US Olympic Committee further tightened reporting requirements for sexual harassment and assault under the SafeSport requirements that are also referenced in the US Sailing.Regulations.
In particular, any allegations of sexual misconduct go directly to SafeSport (and to local law enforcement) without any adjudication or investigation by US Sailing.

Here are the Australian Policies ( https://www.sailing.org.au/about/policydocuments/ ), with the Member Protection Policy being the equivalent to the Canadian Code of Conduct ( https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/piano.revolutionise.com.au/site/fxp7wwo1byhhtfjz.pdf ).

I have been on a panel which found the Code of Conduct most helpful to impose discipline  on a coach. It provides another tool, rather than RRS 2 or 69, to deal with improper behaviour, especially by a non competitor.

Articles ... Policies .. Codes of Conduct.  

Promotion and enforcement of all that embodies Good Sportsmanship is something that is VERY important to me, so the fact that MNA's are making it clear to competitors is manifestly a benefit and a very good thing.

My only thought is confusion in a proliferation of different forms of docs .. what they are called .. how they are found .. how they are applied and brought into jurisdiction in events and on competitors.

Wonder if it would be better to have a common WS CoC ... maybe as an Appendix to the RRS .. and allow them to be changed and referenced from there for diff venues and jurisdictions?

Ang

I like most of the protections the authors of the CAN Code have included. It covers due process and, for the most part, establishes fairly clear lines of jurisdiction. I'm concerned that, in some cases, it strives to enforce a 'principle too far'. 

The simple example is Officials CoC 2.1.7, 'Be on time for all meetings ... '. Isn't this trivial when compared to sexual harassment or ethical behavior? It is a committee chairman's responsibility (if he or she isn't the one who is late), not an infraction to be reported to the Sail Canada CEO or Chair. 

Another is life jackets. While participates are required to wear personal safety gear where appropriate and while on the water (makes common sense to me). But coaches, instructors and officials are required to wear life jackets while on the water (2.1.6). There is no argument that if conditions warrant, life jackets mitigate the risk and set a good example by someone in authority. But, intermediate or advanced instruction on an offshore boat, with life lines in light winds, or observing races on a 15 meter yacht, does not. Adherence to the CAN Code, may mean the Sport Canada official is the only person on the water wearing the life jacket - not the example of 'common sense' we should be giving others.

Finally is the requirement to adhering to all International, Canadian, Provincial, Municipal, Regional, Civic or host country laws. At best, this is an unenforceable reach where enforcement should be left to the jurisdiction, not a national sailing governing body. At worst, it could be a huge detriment to running regattas. How many times has a race official arrived on Saturday morning to find out the borrowed motor boat assigned to humor her lacks the required towing line, flares or bailing implement? Should he or she refuse to go out until these are obtained?

IMHO, I wish the Code was more surgical in defining what was important and should be binding. Rules against discrimination, harassment, and safety, are fundamental to a governing bodies mandate and should be emphasized and enforced. I think the code would be better if Sail Canada would have gone through and cut out the ideas that are "nice but not necessary" and dilute the Code.