Justice Committee on March 27th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to get started five seconds early. I'm using BlackBerry time, so there it is, 3:30.

Thank you for joining us today at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 67, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 28, on Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).

We're fortunate enough to have the sponsor with us, from the Senate, the Honourable Bob Runciman, senator.

Massimo Pacetti, the MP for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, has just arrived.

While they're getting comfortable, I will just let you know that late yesterday afternoon the clerk got a call—and he called me—from the British Columbia government, their department of sport or whatever it is, wanting to be a witness on this bill. My thought was that I would bring it to committee to say that instead of doing clause-by-clause today, the Monday we come back we'll put the first hour aside for any further witnesses because we only have one, other than the movers of the bill. We have only one witness today and I think it's appropriate that if there are others who would like to come and see us on this private member's bill that they do so. I'm putting that out for discussion for the group, and then we'll go right to the piece.

Monsieur Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

We're not pressed on this bill. I don't see any reason not to have a witness who wants to come forth.

Also, there was some opposition from the Canadian Medical Association. I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile seeing an opposing point of view coming forth from a potential witness from that group. We do have time. It would be two witnesses, and clause-by-clause study after, if we see fit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Any other comments?

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

As I said previously, I have no problem with that. I think it's nice that we have a full view of things, and as I said to the chair, I really appreciate that because his comment was that in the wake of my comments when I presented my amendment at the last committee meeting, sometimes we're pretty rushed for time. I appreciate that we'll take our time on this bill, which is not the most contentious bill, so I do hope we have the same attitude for bills that are a bit more crunchy, legally. I appreciate that because I think it makes us do a job a bit more thoroughly. We'll just remember for the next few bills that it's the proper attitude to have, when we have serious witnesses who want to appear in front of us, that we don't just short-circuit their appearance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you. So it sounds like a reasonable approach.

Yes.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

On Wednesday would we do the planning meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Yes. Here's what we could do. On Monday we could have witnesses on this. I've talked to Madame Boivin. It's one clause and we could actually still do clause-by-clause, or the clause, on Monday. On Wednesday we will have a planning meeting for the next little while. We are here for nine weeks, with a one-week break, so we'll see what we can plan within that time and we'll just do a subcommittee on the agenda. If that is satisfactory to everyone, that's how we will proceed the first week we're back. Is that okay?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

That sounds good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Sorry for the delay, Senator, and Mr. Pacetti.

The floor is yours. I know we have you for only half an hour. Senator Runciman is chair of another meeting that starts shortly after four, so he has to leave at four, for sure.

The floor is yours, gentlemen.

[Senator Bob Runciman, Ontario (Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes), CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On your comments earlier about asking the Canadian Medical Association, if they do confirm, you may want to consider asking an expert witness from the medical community on the other side of the issue as well. We had a fellow by the name of Dr. Sam Gutman, who is an experienced ringside doctor from Vancouver. He's been involved in monitoring these kinds of activities, including boxing, for many years. So to sort of counter the perspective you're going to hear from the Canadian Medical Association, it might be worthwhile asking him if he'd be prepared to attend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll follow up on that name, then. Thank you.

[Senator Bob Runciman]

Thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak about Bill S-209. This bill updates the definition of “prize fighting” in section 83 of the Criminal Code, a definition that hasn't been changed in nearly 80 years. When the current offence of prize fighting became part of the code, the only exception allowed was for a boxing match held under the jurisdiction of a provincial athletic board.

As we all know, a lot has changed since then, and that's why the bill is necessary. Other combative sports have increased in popularity in the intervening decades, particularly at the amateur level.

Mixed martial arts is the fastest growing professional sport in North America, yet technically all these sports, including some Olympic events, are illegal. Provinces are forced to skirt the law when they allow these competitions to go ahead. I describe it as creative interpretations of the Criminal Code.

Bill S-209 updates the definition of a “prize fight” to include an encounter with fists, hands, or feet, and expands the list of exemptions to the offence to include amateur combative sports that are on the program of the International Olympic Committee or the program of the International Paralympic Committee, other amateur sports as designated or approved by the province, and boxing contests and mixed martial arts contests held under the authority of a provincial athletic board, commission. or a similar body.

In all exemptions, provincial permission is required and the contests are supervised by provincial or municipal regulators. Most of the provisions of this bill are identical to those in former Bill C-31, from the second session of the 40th Parliament, provisions that were the result of extensive consultation dating back more than a decade among the federal government, the provinces, and national sports organizations. The only change from Bill C-31 is the addition of the words “or mixed martial arts contest” in paragraph 1(2)(d).

Regulators at both the provincial and municipal levels support this bill. Ken Hayashi, who is the long-time athletics commissioner of Ontario, and Pat Reid, the executive director of the Edmonton Combative Sports Commission, both testified at the Senate committee about the need to update the Criminal Code. These are people, I can tell you from my experience as consumer minister in Ontario, who take their job very seriously, who want to ensure all the rules are complied with, and that athletes' health and safety are protected.

Their job is more difficult when the law they enforce no longer reflects reality. I know that for members of Parliament the top-of-mind concern will be safety of the athletes. Regulators require physicians to be at ringside during combative sport competitions, and competitors are subject to extensive pre- and post-fight medical tests and examinations, examinations that are conducted and supervised independently, unlike other sports.

The Edmonton Combative Sports Commission has compiled 10 years of evidence comparing injuries in mixed martial arts and boxing, that demonstrate that boxing is in fact more dangerous than mixed martial arts. They examined 556 boxing matches and found 9.5% of the fighters suffered concussions. They looked at 1,119 mixed martial arts bouts, and they found that the concussion rate was at 4.9%, just over half of that of boxing.

Regulators and competitors say the lower incidence of brain injuries in mixed martial arts is due to the nature of the combat and the various ways a fight can end, including the tap-out, which is a form of voluntary submission. Thirty per cent of UFC bouts end with a tap-out.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to sit here and tell you and other members of the committee that there are not significant risks of injuries in combative sports. There are. The question is, how do we best mitigate that risk?

In my view, proper regulation and supervision is crucial. Regulators want a more secure legal framework in which to operate. Bill S-209 is part of that process. By updating the Criminal Code to reflect modern reality, we are giving regulators one of the tools they need to keep athletes safe.

Again, I thank the committee for inviting me and look forward to any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Pacetti, have you anything you'd like to add to that?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I have a couple of notes.

I just want to thank the committee for having me. As colleagues I think it's a great honour to be in front of committee. I've done this a few times and it is a bit intimidating, but I understand that from your point of view you don't want to hear me for too long.

I'm just going to go through a couple of points. I already spoke in the House on this. I have a couple of points that I am going to make in French, so not to repeat what the senator just said.

I would just like to highlight a few points.

The goal of this bill is to legalize certain combative sports that are currently illegal but tolerated. Bill S-209 will enhance our ability to monitor combative sports in order to protect participants by reducing their risk of injury.

Some will ask why we should even allow such sports. With proper oversight, combative sports, like mixed martial arts, become much less dangerous for participants than other very common sports like hockey or boxing. Underground fights increase the risk of injury and generate unreported earnings. Not only are mixed martial arts competitions such as the UFC's extremely popular in Canada, but they also represent considerable income for our economy.

The purpose of this bill is to update the Criminal Code. Amending the Criminal Code is an important step towards eliminating any ambiguity regarding the legality of combative sports in Canada. And the popularity of those sports is growing. The Criminal Code currently defines a prize fight as an encounter or fight with fists or hands between two persons. The Criminal Code provisions on prize fights haven't been amended since 1934. Back then, combative sports were primarily limited to boxing and wrestling. The Criminal Code needs to include other combative sports such as karate and tae kwon do.

This bill will help prevent illegal underground fighting. Updating the Criminal Code will legalize combative sports such as mixed martial arts and tae kwon do, while standardizing the regulations. Because the Criminal Code doesn't specifically allow certain combative sports, some Canadians organize underground fights, putting participants at significant risk. This bill will give provinces the extra tools they need to better regulate the practice of combative sports.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

We'll go to questions now, and a reminder that we have these two fine gentlemen with us until four o'clock, and then Mr. Wright will join us from four o'clock until five o'clock.

Our first questioner is Monsieur Dubé from the New Democratic Party.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, senator and Mr. Pacetti, for being here today.

We're talking about bringing the provincial and municipal approaches in line with one another. Since this bill has been on the table, however, people have frequently been asking why. They think these sports are already permitted because a number of provinces and municipalities allow them to take place.

Could you speak to that in more detail? I think that's a key issue. There is really a desire to harmonize what a number of provinces and municipalities clearly want. I believe it may even be the majority of provinces.

[Senator Bob Runciman]

I think what has happened—and I can only really speak to Ontario—is that Quebec led the way with respect to having these kinds of events on a large scale. I know that there was pressure on the Ontario government for a number of years with respect to allowing them to occur. Just before the last provincial election, the government of the day gave the Athletics Commissioner direction to authorize an event in Toronto. You'll hear later from a witness that it sold out 50,000 seats in no time at all, which is a recognition of the popularity of the sport. The Athletics Commissioner in Ontario is someone who I know very well. I was the consumer minister in Ontario responsible for the athletics commission during my time. It still falls under that ministry. Mr. Hayashi was there then and was a very rigid taskmaster.

I've been a big boxing fan all of my life, really. He and I used to have lengthy conversations about his tough hand with respect to making sure that everything was as safe as it could possibly be. He clearly was concerned about the direction he got from the government. because his reading of the law is that it wasn't allowed under the Criminal Code: no reference to feet. I think he felt they were on thin ice. Certainly, a lot of other jurisdictions across Canada who haven't entered into allowing these events to occur on a large scale in the event have been concerned about the law as it's currently written. Others simply feel that they're going to go ahead and do what I call creative interpretations.

I think that's what happened in Quebec, and I certainly think it's what has happened in Ontario, where they have classified these events as boxing matches. No one has complained. No one has filed a formal complaint with the authorities, but at the same time, every jurisdiction across Canada that wants to see their associations and organizations participate in these kinds of activities want the air cleared. They want the law to be very clear that they're on the right side of it.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I'll just allow myself to interrupt you there because I don't have much time left.

Thanks.

Mr. Pacetti, you mentioned underground fights. That's what I'd like to ask you about. It is quite clear that people practised these sports illegally at one point. Then, provinces and municipalities decided to step in and permit them.

You may or may not agree with me, but I think we're clarifying the legislation. We're adding clarity, if you will, by establishing a legal framework that protects the safety of athletes. Is that right?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

That's correct. Thank you for your question, Mr. Dubé.

As I said at the beginning of my presentation, the Ultimate Fighting Championship, or UFC, fights are currently illegal. They are tolerated, but illegal. I'm no lawyer, but even with the bill's passage, I don't think there will be a focus on requiring provincial and municipal governments to sanction these events.

With this bill, we aren't saying that all prize fights will be legal anywhere in the country. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think they're legal in British Columbia. Permission has to be sought, and only some municipalities allow fighting of that nature.

Right now, the focus is on the fact that the practice is tolerated without the appropriate oversight. There is an attempt to circumvent the law when there shouldn't be. And with the bill, we're focusing more energy on curbing illegal underground fighting, because it is more dangerous for participants. That is why we should pass the bill. That is what I want to see happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pacetti.

Thank you, Monsieur Dubé.

From the Conservative Party, we have Mr. Seeback.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Runciman, I have an e-mail from a gentleman who's in my riding from the Ontario Grappling Alliance. Of course, I wasn't even aware there was an Ontario Grappling Alliance until I received the e-mail, but I'm going to ask you and Mr. Pacetti as well. He seems to believe or has received some advice that because of the changes in this legislation, grappling will now fall into a non-legal status.

My review of the legislation indicates that if it was legal before, it's still going to be legal; if it was illegal before, then it may or may not still be illegal, but it was illegal to begin with. I don't see how this legislation would affect grappling and the Ontario Grappling Alliance.

[Senator Bob Runciman]

No, I don't know either. That issue, not specifically with grappling, came up during the hearings. There is no known sport that does not use fists, hands, or feet. There was talk about naming specific sports. That could create problems, if new hybrid sports come on the scene in the coming years.

I think his fears can be allayed and that he will be safe under this change in the legislation.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Great.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

As a non-lawyer, my opinion is that we're just adding something; we're not deleting. The bill is just adding “feet” to the Criminal Code, so I don't see what the issue would be.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Great.

Mr. Runciman, as you know, the Canadian Medical Association is opposed to mixed martial arts. In one of her interviews, CMA president Dr. Reid said that her association doesn't endorse a sport that uses fighting techniques such as striking and kicking, but that they do encourage more traditional martial arts.

What is your answer to the Canadian Medical Association to convince them that they're wrong in opposing mixed martial arts?