Massimo Pacetti

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

This is not about promoting a sport, but about regulating it. It will be up to the provinces to regulate and approve these fights. Furthermore, municipalities will have to decide whether they will allow these fights in their areas. The laws across Canada are all different. Some provinces and municipalities have such laws, others do not.

I will say it again: the idea is to update the Criminal Code. The bill does not promote the sport; it simply updates a section of the act that has not been updated for over 80 years. That is the purpose of this bill. It is a technical detail, and it is about time that Parliament took action.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas for his question. I know that he has been working very hard on this issue. I am grateful for his support.

Indeed, this is a relatively new sport, which the UFC is actively promoting. The UFC has begun regulating the sport and trying to make it safer, relatively speaking, given that participants are not allowed to fight without first passing a medical. In addition, they cannot fight in a competitive match more than once every six months. Regulating the sport will also help eliminate illegal fights.

The bill gives us good reason to decriminalize this part of the Criminal Code and the legislation by adding the word “feet” to one section of the existing Criminal Code.

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (prize fights), May 6th, 2013]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the third reading debate of Bill S-209, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights).

No changes were proposed in committee, so Bill S-209 has not been amended. Since the bill is rather short, that is not surprising. We heard from several interesting witnesses in committee. Most of them were in favour of this bill, and only one opposed it.

I think it is important to take everyone's opinions into account so that we make the best possible decisions. The concerns that were raised were not about the bill itself, but about combative sports in general.

This is not a matter of promoting a specific sport. All sports involve their own risks. Many Canadians participate in certain sports knowing full well the associated risks.

This bill would modernize the Criminal Code to reflect what is really going on in our society by decriminalizing several extremely popular combative sports, such as karate, tae kwon do and mixed martial arts.

Although they are illegal under the Criminal Code, these sports are widely practised by Canadians across the country. The provinces tolerate these sports by designating them as boxing matches. Since the combative sports section of our Criminal Code has not been updated in 80 years, the provinces have had no choice but to tolerate them.

This situation is all the more ridiculous considering that certain combative sports are now Olympic sports, but they are illegal in Canada if we enforce the Criminal Code word for word. Young children participate in these sports.

No one in the House is questioning a person's right to participate in these sports. We are not trying to promote these sports or discourage Canadians from participating in them. All we want to do is modernize our laws to reflect today's reality.

The Canadian Medical Association told us that it thinks we should ban mixed martial arts and boxing, but it did not have a problem with other combative sports, such as karate or tae kwon do, which also involve hits to the head.

However, with the exception of boxing, these sports are all officially illegal, but tolerated. Doing nothing would not change anything. People would continue to participate in these sports, even though they could technically wind up in court for doing so.

Other sports, for example skiing and hockey, cause many serious injuries such as fractures and concussions. If we had to ban every sport involving risks, only sports such as curling and badminton would be left.

During the same meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, another doctor who works in the world of combative sport, told us that he supports the bill. He explained that the health risks for participants can be reduced considerably by implementing safety regulations and measures. This particular doctor believes that by decriminalizing these sports we will foster regulated rather than underground competitions, which occur more frequently than we might imagine.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University faculty of medicine published an article in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine in 2006. They studied injuries sustained in mixed martial arts, which they found were similar to those in boxing and other combative sports. What is more surprising is that they believe fewer brain injuries are sustained in mixed martial arts than in boxing, because fewer mixed martial arts competitions end in knockouts compared to boxing.

As members probably know, a knockout usually occurs when the brain hits hard against the skull. However, mixed martial arts fights frequently end as a result of an armlock or choke. The competitors are often less inclined to punch because they want to avoid being pinned to the ground. In short, given that boxing is legal, we really do not have any good reasons to ban mixed martial arts.

This bill will decriminalize these sports and allow the provinces to regulate them.

A province could pass much stricter regulations for amateur mixed martial arts contests, such as not allowing a competitor to hit an opponent who is down. The bill does not aim to dictate rules for the sport; it aims to give tools to the provinces. The situation is ambiguous right now. If we do not amend the Criminal Code, there will be a threat hanging over the heads of the organizations involved in these disciplines because someone could contest their legality in court.

The bill will also have a positive impact on the growing industry of professional fights, which has been incredibly successful in Canada in the past few years. UFC is unbelievably popular across the entire country. Canadians represent approximately 25% of the global fan base. Organizers would obviously like to arrange fights in Canada as often as possible, which would inevitably bring a large number of tourists as well. There will be significant economic spinoffs for Canada. The provinces and cities will no longer have to creatively interpret the bill and will have more flexibility in allowing these types of competitions.

People are likely wondering why this bill adds only feet to the current definition of a prizefight. The reason is simple: there are no combat sports that do not use fists, hands or feet in some way, but there are sports, such as football and hockey, where contact is permitted with other parts of the body. By adding more descriptors, we would simply be adding more problems. That is why the proposed definition mentions only fists, hands and feet.

While this bill might not spark a revolution, it is still important. The prizefight section of the Criminal Code has not been amended since 1934, despite the fact that the world of combat sports has changed dramatically in the past 80 years. It is important that we, as parliamentarians, update the Criminal Code to reflect that reality.

This is one of those rare bills that we can all agree with, and I hope that all members will support it.

[Canadian Cancer Society, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have either been or know someone who has been affected by cancer, so we all realize the impact of this disease.

Over the years, diagnosis, treatment and quality of care have vastly improved, but in 2012 there were over 186,000 cases of cancer and of those cases, 75,000 may die, still far too many.

This year, we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Canadian Cancer Society, which supports individuals and their families from the time they are diagnosed until the end of their treatment, works with public health agencies to promote health and cancer prevention, funds cutting-edge research, and promotes better health for all Canadians.

The Canadian Cancer Society has delivered over $1.2 billion in funding for research since 1947. I am pleased to salute its ongoing efforts and encourage all Canadians to display their daffodils today to help raise cancer awareness and show those living with cancer that they are not alone in this fight and that we will find a cure together.

[Taxation, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we voted against lousy budgets. Canadians are paying the tax, not the Chinese.

Once again, we see how much this Conservative government lacks substance. It announced reduced tariffs on hockey equipment in order to score points with those who play our national sport, but because of its lack of substance, it has scored on its own net instead. While on the offensive, it forgot about hockey helmets, taxes on which will go up by 70%.

Will the Conservatives revise their game plan and ensure that our young people will be protected while playing their sport?

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is easy. It is absolutely. This country is based on immigration. Without immigration where would we be? Every year the population goes up based on immigration. Tons of people have settled here from other countries and they want to bring their families over. Sometimes they do not necessarily have their citizenship or even their permanent residency. They may be refugee claimants. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, these are model citizens. These people hold one, two, and three jobs whenever they can, sometimes at minimum wage. Their kids are model students. These people know if they have two strikes against them they are out. They come here to turn their life around and help Canada be the country that it is today.

Nobody here is opposed to temporary workers. I have not heard anybody say anything against them. We are opposed to the Conservatives not having a plan. They have no plans for anything. Forget about them having an economic plan. In the same way they have no plan for anything, they sure have no plan for temporary workers.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that was a well thought out question. There were a lot of aspects in it. Obviously I did not have a chance to address all of the points that I wanted to address. That is why we are calling for a special committee.

It has been a huge surprise as to how the Conservatives have been responding. They have admitted that there is a problem but they said they have solved the problem. Maybe they will solve the problem in the future if they do not solve it today and if we have not solved it with the next budget. We do not really see anything in the budget. All they talk about is training but training is going to be implemented over the next two years. That is another temporary fix for temporary workers.

There are huge problems. Everybody who has stood up in the House has brought up a different point. Here we are still debating when we should just go straight to the vote and get the committee on board and get working as parliamentarians. Let the experts tell us what needs to be done to repair this.

[Business of Supply, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to my party's motion, moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso. The motion is lengthy, but very clear:

That the House recognize that the use of temporary foreign workers to replace Canadian workers in jobs Canadians are qualified and able to do is an abuse of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that this program is not abused in a way which threatens the wellbeing of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy; that a special committee be appointed, with a mandate to conduct hearings on this critical issue, to hear from Canadians affected by this practice, and to propose solutions to strengthen the rules around the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to prevent abuse;...

It is a very simple motion. It is not too complicated and everyone should be able to get behind it. However, we see that the Conservatives are against the motion. We still do not know where the NDP stands on it, but I believe that certain MPs will vote in favour of the motion.

The rest of the motion is rather technical. It talks about the composition of the committee, which will be formed in the same manner as all other committees. It will have to report its recommendations to the House on June 19. At least we are calling for action and proposing measures in order to get answers.

It goes without saying that the topic of temporary foreign workers is a hot-button issue. Many Canadians, including my constituents, are worried about losing their jobs to temporary foreign workers who work for minimum wage.

The story of the temporary foreign workers hired by RBC—and other similar stories making headlines—to replace Canadian workers has, not surprisingly, made headlines recently. Should we be concerned about foreign workers? Should the program be reformed? Does the program work? That is what we would like to know.

This issue raises a number of questions. A number of people will want to share their point of view, which is largely based on their ideology and their personal beliefs. As parliamentarians, we have to set aside our opinions when dealing with such a complex issue. We must first acknowledge that there is a problem.

When the number of temporary foreign workers doubles in six years, increasing by almost 200,000 during an economic crisis, we have to ask ourselves some serious questions. More than 33,000 organizations have recruited temporary foreign workers over the past few years, while the unemployment rate has gone up exponentially across Canada.

A number of business leaders will say that they use temporary foreign workers to address our skills shortage. That is often the case and that is why the former Liberal government created the temporary foreign workers program. The primary purpose of the program was to complement the Canadian labour force, not to replace it. For instance, we know that the farming community must often hire temporary workers in the summer to fill positions that not many Canadians want or are able to fill. That is perfectly acceptable, since summer does not last long in Canada. That is when the program is needed.

However, when one in seven jobs created since the Conservatives came to power is filled by a temporary foreign worker, while the unemployment rate is on the rise, there is clearly a problem.

Creating a special committee made up of members of all recognized parties will make it possible to examine the issue in more detail. I think the Conservatives should have no reason to fear hearing the facts in a committee where they will have a majority anyway. Let me add that, if they are acting in good faith, they will agree with us and vote in favour of our motion.

The figures show that there is a problem. Why do we have this situation? Some people say that businesses are using temporary foreign workers to boost their profits and lower their costs. Others have raised the issue of relocating operations to other countries. Companies are bringing in foreign workers from those countries to train and prepare them here prior to relocating.

Although not actually permitted by the program, it seems that a number of businesses have found ways to get around the program requirements and to use it to hire foreign workers for lower pay. This is the accusation heard most often, as demonstrated by the RBC case. We have just heard about another example at the CIBC, and there are others. This explains the hiring of temporary foreign workers by these businesses.

Although I do not wish to comment on the RBC case, I will nevertheless ask the question: is it true that corporations are using the program to reduce costs? Can this program be circumvented to hire employees who will work for less? Are these accusations baseless? It is difficult to say whether or not these accusations are true. However, a special committee would provide the answers to these questions without falling into the trap of ideology and simplistic answers.

Some newspapers have quoted lawyers who run specialized immigration firms and who have an interest in this program being maintained. They say it is a myth that it is cheaper to hire temporary foreign workers. However, other legal experts say the opposite. Other experts say that businesses do use the program to hire cheaper labour, as confirmed by the United Steelworkers.

This program allows employers to pay temporary foreign workers 15% less than Canadian workers working in the same sector. These foreign workers are also less able to combat abuse since they are not familiar with their rights and have a hard time forming a union, for example.

My NDP colleagues are opposed to the creation of a committee and moved their own motion on the grounds that the committee will be made up mainly of Conservatives and will not achieve anything. I see that as bad faith. There is a majority of Conservatives in the House. The Conservatives can just as easily oppose the NDP motion, which completely invalidates their argument. The problem is that both the Conservatives and the New Democrats are prisoners of their ideologies, which dictate simplistic responses based on opinion instead of fact. A committee would allow us to question different experts who will provide information on the extent of the problem and will help us bring in solutions that work.

The issues of wages and hiring temporary foreign workers instead of Canadians are not our only concerns. We are also concerned that the use of temporary foreign workers will open the door for companies to relocate and that they will use the program to train foreign replacement workers before the company relocates. This also enables companies to quietly get rid of local workers—who are often unionized, organized and able to get media attention—and replace them with foreign workers we will never hear about again in the media, before the company relocates a service five years later to a country with cheaper labour.

The Conservatives like signing bilateral free trade agreements with other countries, but they must also consider the fact that these treaties make relocation an option. They must ensure that businesses will not be able to use the temporary foreign worker program to make relocation easier. This is a very complicated issue that could be examined by the special committee we are proposing today.

I urge all members to support the motion. As we have said, the Conservatives mismanaged the program, and all of the promised reviews were nothing but lip service, since no progress has been made in months or even years.

[Elections Canada, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada just published a report on the electoral fraud committed by the Conservatives during the last election.

In order to combat this Conservative fraud, Elections Canada is calling for a new law that would dramatically increase the sanctions imposed on fraudsters in order to maintain the integrity of our electoral system.

Will the Conservatives finally co-operate with Elections Canada, admit that they committed electoral fraud and commit to implementing the recommendations made in the report?

[Discover Your Canada Act, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. This bill is not perfect and will not affect air fares because we did not work with the airlines.

The reason for the bill is to help Canadians get to know one another. What I have seen is that Canada is divided into three regions: eastern, central and western Canada. I would like Canadians to start travelling between the east and the west, passing through central Canada. That is the reason for choosing three provinces.

I do not want someone from Rouyn-Noranda to travel in Ontario, because that is easy to do. I know that the member is absolutely right about the price of an airline ticket. However, I will leave that for another bill at another time. Canadians have to start getting to know one another and discovering Canada. The only way to do that is to get them to travel as far as possible in the regions. When I talk about the regions, I am not talking about going from an urban area to a rural area. I am talking about travelling to eastern, western and central Canada. That is how people can get to know one another. That is the reason for this bill.