Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2012

First Nations Financial Transparency Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of the bill, however, pursuant to Standing Order 45 the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, November 26 at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal Code

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

moved that Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today in the House to support Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights). The purpose of this bill is to legalize certain combat sports that are currently illegal, but tolerated, so that they can be more closely monitored in order to prevent injuries.

It is important to amend the Criminal Code in order to eliminate any ambiguity regarding the legality of the various combat sports in Canada, which are growing in popularity.

The provisions of the Criminal Code that deal with prize fighting have not been amended since 1934. At that time, combat sports were basically limited to boxing and wrestling; however, since the end of the Second World War, they have seen unprecedented growth. For example, certain Asian martial arts, such as judo, karate and taekwondo, have become commonplace since soldiers stationed in Asia discovered them. Young Canadians across the country participate in these sports, which are all recognized by the Olympic organizing committee.

These sports are relatively new in our country and are still illegal because the only exception to prize fighting set out in the Criminal Code is boxing. The Criminal Code currently defines prize fighting as an encounter or fight with fists or hands between two persons.

According to this definition, two young people could organize an underground taekwondo match in a basement and it would not be considered a prize fight as long as they did not use their hands. This definition is too narrow. That is why, with Bill S-209, we are proposing that feet be added to this definition. As it was established in the Senate committee, adding more descriptors to this definition, such as elbows and knees, is not necessary and could even be counterproductive since contact sports, such as hockey, could then be considered prize fighting sports. That is why the new definition is limited to fists and feet.

By modernizing the Criminal Code to permit other combative sports such as mixed martial arts and karate, we are laying the groundwork for the general acceptance of these sports across the country. In fact, mixed martial arts, for example, are tolerated in some provinces, but not in others. Some provinces have called these contests boxing matches in order to allow them. Because the hands are used, the limits of the law are circumvented, and fans and those who practice combative sports are not penalized.

However, in other provinces this language is not used to circumvent the Criminal Code, and these sports are not permitted. Consequently, even today, many groups organize clandestine contests that are not governed by provincial standards. This is a serious problem because safety standards can vary from one contest to another, which increases the risk of injury to the fighters. If the Criminal Code is amended to allow these sports, the provinces will have the freedom to regulate them to protect the safety of fighters. In fact, the bill will give the provinces a great deal of latitude to regulate these sports as they see fit. Oversight of these sports contests at both the amateur and professional levels will be enhanced.

Some people may be wondering why we should legalize these combative sports, especially mixed martial arts, which are a source of concern for many Canadians. In addition to the fact that they are widely practised, they are much less dangerous to the health of participants than other commonly practised sports such as hockey and boxing.

As we heard in committee and in the Senate, a study by Johns Hopkins University, published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2006, compared injuries sustained in mixed martial arts and in other sports. The conclusion was that the rate of injury is comparable to that in other combative sports.

Shockingly, injuries in mixed martial arts are generally less serious than in boxing. The reason in simple: fighters can call things off quickly, which they almost always do when they are in a position that is putting their health at risk. In boxing, fights often end with a knockout or when the referee calls it off.

Furthermore, since a large number of mixed martial arts fights take place on the ground and involve armlocks and chokes, blows to the head are less common than in boxing, in which almost all blows target the head. Over time, a mixed martial arts fighter receives fewer blows to the head, which reduces the risk of side effects.

In addition, contrary to popular belief, mixed martial arts are heavily regulated. Fighters cannot do whatever they want and must comply with a number of regulations to avoid injuries. These regulations include a total ban on blows to the eyes or head. They must also wear a jockstrap, gloves and a mouthguard, which limit injuries. Hockey, our national sport, results in just as many—if not more—injuries than mixed martial arts.

Sports must be regulated, not banned. Banning them would only increase the number of underground fights, which are dangerous for participants, since they do not always take all of the safety measures required to properly regulate such fights. This includes having a medical team that is prepared to intervene, as well as safety regulations, such as requiring gloves or banning blows to the head. Furthermore, revenue from underground fights often goes undeclared, which does not benefit taxpayers. It is in our collective interest to recognize the popularity of these sports and to legalize them to ensure better regulations.

The popularity of mixed martial arts is exploding and will produce huge economic spinoffs for Canada. Quebec's Georges St-Pierre, who is one of the most popular fighters in the world and is the Ultimate Fighting Championship world champion, draws big crowds and models the professionalism and skill of Canadian athletes. I attended his last UFC fight, and I can attest to the people's infatuation for him and the sport.

Tom Wright, director of operations in Canada, recently told La Presse that ticket revenues from UFC 154 in Montreal were the third-highest this year, after Las Vegas and Calgary. He also said that Canada is the second-largest market for UFC, behind the United States. However, considering the difference in population, Canada has the most mixed martial arts fans per capita, ahead of countries like the United States and Brazil.

UFC fights organized in Canada have generated tens of millions of dollars in revenues for our country. Furthermore, 25% of the people watching these events on television are Canadian. Most of the highest-grossing UFC events have been held in Canada, once again demonstrating the popularity of the sport. On top of that, we have all the direct and indirect spinoffs, such as the GST and the tourists who come to Canada and spend a lot of money to attend these fights. They bring in tens of millions of dollars, which makes this sport a major tourist attraction and economic driver.

I would like to point out that UFC has only come to Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary. Considering the growing popularity of mixed martial arts, organizers are now turning to cities like Ottawa, Quebec City and Winnipeg. Needless to say, the more competitions we have in Canada, the more direct and indirect revenues we will see, especially thanks to the many tourists who will travel here to see them.

The sport is becoming increasingly popular, and it is likely that the economic spinoffs from this sport will quickly increase in the years to come, in light of this sport's growing popularity. Bill S-209 will support both fans and organizers, which will help improve the Canadian economy.

For all these reasons, I support this bill, which will add more combative sports to the list of exceptions to the prize fighting offences. This list is currently limited to boxing. Bill S-209 will help provide better regulation for these sports, which are widely practised in Canada, and will give the provinces the tools they need to regulate them. These regulations will help reduce the risk of injury and will discourage people from participating in underground fights.

Since the popularity of combative sports is growing, they are economically viable. There is no reason not to modernize the Criminal Code to reflect this new reality. That is why I support this bill and hope that my colleagues will do the same.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in favour of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).

I would like to begin by noting that Bill S-209 is a private member's bill that was introduced in the other place by Senator Runciman. It proposes to amend section 83 of the Criminal Code. Currently, section 83 makes it a summary conviction offence to engage in a prize fight, to promote a prize fight or to attend a prize fight as an aid, second, surgeon, umpire, backer or reporter. Section 83 then carves out exceptions to the prize fighting offence for certain amateur boxing contests and for certain professional boxing contests.

The exception for an amateur boxing contest arises if each glove used meets the minimum weight of 140 grams. An amateur boxing contest where the gloves to be used do not meet the minimum weight specified in section 83 of the Criminal Code can still be excepted from the prize fighting offence if the province issues a licence for the contest. Similarly, any professional boxing contest is exempted from the section 83 prize fighting offence if the province issues a licence for the contest.

Bill S-209 contains proposals 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, kick-boxing and mixed martial arts. Bill S-209 would also clarify that the exemption in section 83 which covers professional boxing contests would include professional mixed martial arts contests.

It is important to underscore that Bill S-209 contemplates provincial decision making with respect to both amateur exceptions and the professional exceptions to prize fights that are found in Bill S-209.

First, I will speak about the amateur combative sport contest aspect of Bill S-209 and then I will turn to the professional boxing and professional mixed martial contest aspect of the bill.

The reforms to the amateur prize fighting provisions of the Criminal Code found in Bill S-209 replicate those that were found in former government Bill C-31 introduced during the second session of the 40th Parliament, which died on the order paper. However, Bill C-31 proposed reforms only to the amateur prize fighting aspect of section 83 of the Criminal Code. Former Bill C-31 did not propose to extend current exemptions to the prize fighting offence for a professional boxing contest that held a licence from the province to any other professional combative sport contest.

Bill S-209 would extend the exemption for amateur prize fights in a way that would respect provincial decision making.

First, it would allow any amateur combative sport event in a sport that is on the Olympic or Paralympic program. If the province chooses, it can require that the Olympic or Paralympic combative sport contest obtain a licence from the province.

Second, Bill S-209 would make an exception to the prize fight offence for any amateur sport contest that would be on a list of designated amateur combative sports by the province and the province could choose to require that a licence is necessary for the designated amateur combative sport contest.

Third, Bill S-209 would make an exception for any other amateur combative sport contest for which a province had chosen to grant a licence.

As I have said, these amendments for amateur exceptions to the prize fighting offence were found in the government's previous bill, Bill C-31. They reflected consultations between federal and provincial officials at a time when professional mixed martial arts had not developed to the point where it is today in terms of its fan base and its rules.

Turning to the current professional boxing exemption from the section 83 prize fighting offence, Bill S-209 would clarify that a professional mixed martial arts contest that was licensed by a province would be an exception to the prize fighting offence in section 83 of the Criminal Code. British Columbia has requested that the code be amended to clarify any doubt in the matter. I note that there are other provinces, for example, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta, which have licensed professional mixed martial arts contests as professional boxing contests. Bill S-209 would bring clarity in respect of professional mixed martial arts contests.

The professional exception in Bill S-209 does not extend to professional combative sports other than professional boxing and professional mixed martial arts. Perhaps this is because these two professional combative sports have television coverage and it does not appear that any other combative sports are on the verge of developing in Canada a professional aspect with such a fan base and television coverage.

We can see that where Bill S-209 would contemplate licensing, it is a provincial licensing that is identified. Bill S-209 would not try to go around the province by exempting a prize fight licensed by a municipality, for example, because a municipality is in fact the creation of a provincial legislature. If a province wished to establish a municipal body as a licensing body, it could choose to do so, but it would be for the province to decide.

As I noted earlier, the amendments to section 83 of the Criminal Code would respect provincial decision-making in the area of permitted exceptions to the prize-fighting offence. In my view, the provinces are best placed to determine public acceptance of combative sports within the range set by the Criminal Code. No province would be forced to permit an amateur combative sport or to license a professional boxing contest or a professional mixed martial arts contest. The province might decide that it did not want to permit any or all of these contests, and if such were the case, the province would not be obligated to license them.

Provinces are also best placed to determine what rules and safety measures they want to see in place prior to having a combative sport contest occur in their jurisdiction. With professional mixed martial arts, there has been tremendous development over the past decades, both in terms of fan support in Canada and the rules of the sport. There is a medical doctor who now decides when a fight should stop, rather than the referee or the coach. There are rules related to striking and holds that are barred. There are rules that permit an athlete to tap an opponent on the mat, which are not present in professional boxing, for example.

The reforms in Bill S-209 regarding amateur combative sports and professional mixed martial arts are long awaited. The amendments in Bill S-209 would modernize the amateur combative sport contest exceptions in section 83 of the Criminal Code. They would also clarify that a province could license a professional mixed martial arts contest as an exception to the prize-fighting offence in section 83 of the Criminal Code.

I urge all members to support Bill S-209.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this speech will depart from a series of speeches linked by a common thread, in order to highlight a matter before this House that, I must say, is in my area of practice.

Now I am going to make amends. Some of my constituents have pointed out that, in most of my speeches in this House, there is a recurring theme. I have spoken for a number of hours in this House—many hours—at a rate of four or five speeches every week. Over the months, they add up.

Far be it from me to present myself as some obtuse academic, or to be narrow-minded like some of my colleagues who are told to toe the party line and how to act, and whose speeches are even written for them. I must admit that there is a recurring theme in each of my speeches.

I still have an ace up my sleeve, and that is what I am doing right now: I am going to use my ace and continue talking about a recurring theme: the law. I am going to talk about the philosophy of law and ethics in the fields that I studied, about 10 years ago, when I began studying law at Université Laval.

I will continue in this vein. I will take a look at comparative law and transpose some of these principles because I think that, rather like the recurring themes in each of my speeches, these are subjects that deserve to be examined and presented to all Canadians. This is why I sometimes emphasize these notions. I am going to speak further to these issues today.

In this speech, I am going to draw on concepts I was taught during my training at Université Laval. It is a very good university. I want to emphasize that. The tangent I am going to take will be influenced by concepts relating to the ethical issues that fuel the social debate about prize fighting.

As I said earlier, I began studying the law in 2001. I started here first, at the University of Ottawa, and then I continued at Université Laval in Quebec City. Over time, I saw that it was a very good university. The quality of education there is excellent.

In my first year, I was asked to select courses, and I turned of course toward the philosophy of law. I had one professor, Bjarne Melkevik, a Norwegian who had taught at Laval University for a number of years, who was in charge of the courses, who went into things in depth, who investigated and decided to explore issues that at the time were rather less accessible and rather less popular. As part of the program, we discussed the social costs of self-mutilating behaviour. This is just one example that is not necessarily in line with the focus of this speech. We discussed the social costs of hospitalizing people who self-harm. I remember vaguely that we also discussed ultimate fighting, back then. That was about a decade ago. It was already on the map, it was already a trend, and we had to look into it. I remember this vaguely. It was not something that came up in many classes. However, it was one subject. Mr. Melkevik, who is European, was a bit ahead of his time. I would like to send my greetings out to him, by the way, in the hope that he is watching me right now.

At that time, the subject was a bit avant-garde. It is a little less so today. We are talking about it here, in the House of Commons. Later on, I will be discussing how the Criminal Code is a document, a tool that must be innovative and that must be updated on a regular basis. This is what we are doing right now. Canadian society has come to this point. In a broader sense, we have to take a look at these concepts that deserve to be dealt with for Canadians as a whole.

The mere fact that the issues involved in mixed martial arts are now included in the university law curriculum is evidence of the social changes that support revisiting the provisions in the Criminal Code covering the risks inherent in prize fighting.

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions—I am repeating myself while hoping I am not being redundant—in my practice I focused on representing clients in the criminal sphere.

When I went to work at the legal aid office after I was called to the bar in 2006 or 2007, I was assigned duties related to criminal law right away. That is why I was asked to focus on the Criminal Code and related laws.

Over the years and during my time in the House, I have seen that this law is constantly evolving. It is fairly long. In fact, the bound annotated version is a very large document. It is a document that is constantly evolving and adapting to changes in society. We have examined it. We have discussed it here and have had fairly animated debates regarding offences, particularly those related to technology and cyberbullying.

The Criminal Code must be updated on a regular basis, and that is what we are doing right now. What is being proposed here is simply an addition to the law, which can be summarized in a few words, particularly if we take into consideration the innovations and amendments that the Conservatives have conceived and ruthlessly applied to the principles of the Criminal Code over the past year and a half. These changes are very small.

By way of example, I will quote the bill:

“prize fight” means an encounter or fight with fists, hands or feet...

The word “feet” is simply being added. That is not a huge change. However, it is required to prevent a legal void or grey area.

Several provinces, including Quebec, already have regulations that enjoy wide support. That is why ultimate fighting contests already take place in Quebec. However, this is not the case in all parts of the country. That is why the Criminal Code must be revised. This addition will allow athletes to legally practise this sport. Ultimately, the addition will eliminate grey areas.

As is my custom, I have taken eight instead of 10 minutes. I submit this respectfully.