Evidence of meeting #68 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sport.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you.
Our next questioner, from the Conservative Party, is Mr. Seeback.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we're all going over the same questions as we try to understand the basis of your opposition to this, because I think we all know that injury and death occur in any sport you come up with. People have died in downhill skiing. People have died in aerial skiing. People have passed away in football. People have passed away in hockey.
There's injury and risk in all of these sports that people take on, and I don't think anyone has any data to show that mixed martial arts has a higher rate of these serious brain injuries or death than any other sport.
I take it you don't have any data like that yourself.
3:55 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
That's correct. I don't think that data exists.
My point is that the difference is that in those sports, the intent is not to injure yourself in your head—
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
I think that's what it comes down to. When I look at what you're saying, and at your statement, it seems to be that your opposition to this is based on the intent of the sport. Regardless of what the data may show, that it's safer or less safe, you're just opposed to it because of the intent.
3:55 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
We're very concerned that a sport would be legal where the intent is to injure someone else's head. That's very difficult—
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Even if there's less risk in that sport than in a different sport where the rate of concussion and injury is higher, your position would still be the same because of the intent.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
All right. I think I understand that now.
I think I now understand it, Mr. Chair, and I think I'm done. Thank you.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you, Mr. Seeback.
Next, from the New Democratic Party, we have Madame Boivin.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, thank you, doctors, for being here in our extreme sport arena—better known as Canadian politics.
I think I understand. And to my mind, everyone around the table understands as well. In any case, I would have been pretty surprised to see the Canadian Medical Association giving us its official okay on
the MMA sport. I would have been in shock, actually, if you had.
But this is where we might differ a bit.
In your presentation, Dr. Reid, you made it clear that you weren't a lawyer. But what the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is trying to determine is whether it is still appropriate for the Criminal Code to qualify the practice of a certain sport as a crime when, in reality, it is not treated as such. The criminal aspect has been completely overlooked for some time now. UFC specials have been around for a number of years. I see them on several TV channels almost every day. Spike TV airs one or two matches with no problem.
We may be dealing with some hypocrisy here. And I'm not referring to your position but to the fact that the practice is criminalized in the Criminal Code. In your opening remarks, you made a statement that also appears in the notes you provided:
For parliamentarians, and for society, the question of whether to legalize MMA under the Criminal Code therefore comes down to a choice: A choice between money and health.
That comment bothered me a bit, for the simple reason that the issue has nothing to do with that in my opinion. Nor is it a matter of legalizing something. You talk about legalizing MMA, but we're actually talking about decriminalizing an activity, not legalizing it. The provinces and territories can put certain rules in place, but that doesn't mean the passage of Bill S-209 would legalize the practice. All it would do is decriminalize an activity that, in actual fact, has not been treated as a crime for quite some time.
That is the reality of Bill S-209. As my colleague Mr. Seeback pointed out, your opposition is based on the intent of the sport. In other words, the foot and elbow strikes dealt directly to a participant's head during mixed martial arts, or MMA, matches make this activity different from other sports. My understanding, then, is whether it happens in boxing or MMA, you're against it as a matter of policy, as doctors.
However, when two hockey players decide to fight during a game, taking off their helmets and gloves so they can punch each other freely in the face, it is clear to me there's an intent there as well. Therefore, I imagine you would like to go as far as to ban fighting in hockey, adding it to your policy on boxing and MMA.
Unless I am mistaken, you're position applies to all cases where an individual uses a body part to strike another person's head on purpose. The head is the main issue for you, is it not?
4 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
Without a doubt other parts of the body can be fixed up but the head can't be. Although we do not have a position on fighting in hockey—I speak on behalf of our membership, not just on my behalf—it's not difficult for me to imagine that the same group of people, the 84% of our delegates to our general council who are opposed to mixed martial arts and boxing, would also be opposed to fighting in hockey with blows to the head.
4 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Is it your position, though, that it has to be criminalized? That is not clear in my head.
It can be legalized. It can be regulated. There could be some boundaries. There could be ways of making sure that the whole process is done better, more secure and so on and so forth.
Is it the position of the CMA that you want to see criminal action against the sport?
4 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
Our concern, in terms of sanctioned versus unsanctioned, is that even with boundaries it's still very difficult to know, in the middle of a fight, which next blow to the person's head will be the blow that causes a problem.
4 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
So even if it's under the consent of the people, if they decide.... To this day I still don't understand why men like to fight each other and beat each other up. Really, I don't, but if they agree to it—this might be a sad comment—be my guest. If nobody is forced to—
4 p.m.
An hon. member
Question...?
4 p.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
—does that have anything to do with it for you? Does it matter if it's consensual or not?
4 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
No. If it's consensual, we still feel that this is an activity we have to speak out against. It causes huge health outcomes. As physicians, we're obligated to speak out about injury prevention and health promotion.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
From the Conservative Party, we have Mr. Albas.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the guests here today for their testimony.
I would like to start, Mr. Chair, by saying that there are some elements of this bill that maybe all of us can agree on, including our witnesses.
Bill S-209 proposes to extend the exemption in section 83 for amateur boxing contests to cover other amateur combative sport contests, including contests in sports such as judo, karate, tae kwon do, and kick-boxing, as well as mixed martial arts. The bill would also clarify that the exemption in section 83 that currently covers professional boxing contests would then include professional mixed martial arts contests.
To both of our witnesses, do you think the proposed changes to the legislation modernize a relatively unused section of the Criminal Code and legitimize sports such as judo, karate, and mixed martial arts?
I'd like to start with the CMA, please.
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
I'm sorry, but I got a little bit lost on the section 83 bit. Can you just go back to it?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Again, there are many good activities that you've said you support, such as judo, tae kwon do, and karate, which right now can qualify under section 83. If, for example, a tae kwon do instructor has a tournament, technically many of the points in section 83 apply to that. We're not just allowing an exemption for mixed martial arts; we're actually clarifying the law for many of these other activities.
4:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Medical Association
I'm a little confused. I'm sorry, but I don't know the section 83 part that you're referring to.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Okay.
Then maybe we'll just ask for the testimony of the other witness, please.