Massimo Pacetti

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2012]

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.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is a complex question and therefore not an easy one to answer. I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from St. Paul's, who is doing a great job for first nations people in her role as aboriginal affairs critic.

If the Kelowna accord, which was reached six years ago, were in effect today, first nations people would be living in a completely different world. Our prime minister at the time consulted all first nations, which is why it was called an accord. It had a budget attached to it.

The accord included five criteria, among them transparency and accountability. It even proposed appointing an independent auditor responsible solely for the first nations file. Thus, a solution could have easily been found and we would not be dealing with the issue here today. Everyone would have had the opportunity to live together in harmony.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to play politics. However, we had an agreement, which was called the Kelowna accord, in 2004, when the NDP helped to make the government fall. We then had a change of government, and all of a sudden the Conservative government does not acknowledge that the Kelowna accord even exists. All of these items, whether they are targets, accountability, are in the Kelowna accord.

As I said in my speech, we have no problem with transparency. The problem is that first nations were not consulted. As the member was saying, there are financial statements and they are audited. If the government needs these audited statements to be propped up a bit, that is fine, but it should also compensate for that added transparency with some funding. First nations have a lot of administrative burden already.

[First Nations Financial Transparency Act, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-27.

According to the Conservative majority, the purpose of this bill is to make first nations' finances more transparent by requiring first nations to disclose various pieces of information.

I must begin by pointing out to the House the irony in this situation: the Conservative government lacks transparency in many areas and has no problem criticizing the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he confirms their lack of transparency.

The Conservatives also hid information that the Chief Electoral Officer had requested when the robocall scandal came to light. They hide their destructive environmental policies in mammoth bills like the budget bill voted on last June. They deceived Canadians on the real cost of the F-35 and they misled Canadians during the election. At the time, they said they would not raise the age of eligibility for old age security, yet they raised it from 65 to 67 just a few months later.

Now the Conservatives are introducing a bill that suggests that first nations are not being transparent. This is ironic, coming from a government that is not very transparent itself.

Before preaching to others and imposing such conditions, the Conservatives should start by looking in the mirror.

Transparency is always a good thing when it comes to public funds. Canadians deserve to have their money well spent, and they deserve to have all the necessary means to know what governments are doing with that money. We must speak out against any misuse of public funds at every level of government.

This is also true for first nations, which deserve to have the funding they are given properly managed and used to develop their community. Like everywhere else, the money is sometimes mismanaged, and it is the members of these communities who suffer for it.

This bill could stigmatize first nations by giving Canadians the impression that aboriginal reserves mismanage their resources and must be put under trusteeship by Ottawa. That is insulting and disrespectful to aboriginal communities, which were not even consulted before the bill was drafted.

I would like to specify that, although it is possible that some communities mismanage their resources, this type of problem is not limited to first nations communities. Many municipalities and governments—federal and provincial—have done a shoddy job of managing public funds. We have seen this frequently in Quebec since the beginning of the Charbonneau commission. Such practices must be stopped at all levels.

We believe that public funds must be managed in a transparent manner. However, imposing transparency, as the Conservatives are trying to do today, is insulting and reminiscent of colonial times. The Conservatives are forgetting that they have a constitutional duty to consult the first nations before making changes to laws that affect them.

However, as they have been in the habit of doing since they won a majority, the Conservatives are acting unilaterally, as though the other levels of government did not exist. The Conservatives are not even trying to examine the amendments proposed by the opposition or even hold consultations with regard to their own amendments. In short, this government is continuing to turn a deaf ear.

The paternalism of this bill is also of great concern. The first nations should have the same amount of freedom as the provinces and municipalities to manage themselves as they wish.

When the federal government sends the provinces equalization cheques, does it tell them how to do their accounting? The provinces pass their own laws, and we have confidence in their justice system.

With Bill C-27, we are acting as though the first nations belonged to the federal government. We are acting as though the first nations needed to be put under trusteeship, as though they were unable to take care of themselves.

Can we require that first nations communities be transparent toward their members? Likely. However, do we need a bill that tells them exactly how to do that?

Aboriginal communities do not all operate in the same way and do not all have the same resources.

By unilaterally passing a bill that will tell them exactly what to do, we will be imposing an administrative burden that will cause problems for many of them. For example, why force first nations to have a website where the public can consult the documents this bill requires, when some of them do not even have drinking water?

For a community of 200 people, for example, being forced to maintain a community website is an unjustifiable burden, especially since the Conservative government is not offering any financial compensation. Disclosing certain information to all Canadians can also cause problems for first nations businesses, which will be put at a competitive disadvantage, as the member for St. Paul's described.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill puts a huge administrative burden on aboriginal communities that have limited means. The first nations already provide at least 168 separate financial reports to the four main federal departments and agencies—Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the CMHC, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, and Health Canada. The administrative burden imposed on the first nations is excessive, and the government is not doing anything to help them with this bill. Their resources are limited, so let us help them by reducing their spending on the administrative documents we force them to produce.

The Conservatives must stop treating the provinces and first nations with contempt. Not only does the Conservative government break our laws and frequently waste taxpayers' money, but it goes so far as to lecture others and to try to control them. A first step for the Conservatives would be to achieve transparency by providing documents in a timely manner when asked to do so by Elections Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. And the Conservatives should consult the provinces and the first nations when considering changes that affect them.

The Liberal Party is not the only one saying it: the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal and the provincial governments have an obligation to consult aboriginal peoples before making decisions that affect their rights, and that they must respond to their concerns.

So why impose this kind of legislation without consultation?

Canadians are afraid of this obsession with control. The provinces no longer have a say. The Conservatives have decided to cut transfers and services, and to increase provincial costs with complete disregard for the principles of federalism. Even the premier of Quebec, a sovereignist, was surprised and disappointed that the Prime Minister of Canada is not attending the meeting of the Council of the Federation in Halifax. We know that we have a serious problem when even a separatist seems to take Canadian federalism more seriously than the Prime Minister of Canada.

Today, the government is treating the first nations in the same way by unilaterally imposing its conditions. For the Prime Minister to have such control over his caucus that he forces them to read texts prepared by his office is one thing. But to have such contempt for Canadian federalism that he passes the costs on to the province and the aboriginal communities is, quite frankly, an insult to Canadians.

We must put an end to paternalism and the colonial mentality towards first nations. We must treat them like partners in our federation. The first nations are not government agencies; they are not the property of the federal government. The Conservatives must negotiate with the first nations in order to find common ground rather than being confrontational. The Conservative government must face the facts, reconsider its approach and take into account the opposition's concerns.

To that end, the Conservatives should vote with the Liberal Party against this bad bill, and they should go back to the drawing board.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 23rd, 2012]

With regard to the funding of enterprises and projects by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA): (a) how many entities have received funding from CIDA while being under legal protection from creditors since 2006; and (b) in such cases, does CIDA have a policy to take action to ensure that these entities meet their financial obligations to creditors, sub-contractors, employees and stakeholders?

[Ethics, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie is located in Quebec.

The Conservatives' money laundering scheme has been uncovered. We are talking about thousands of dollars that went into the Conservatives' coffers illegally and hundreds of fake names used to launder the cash.

In light of the revelations that have come out of the Charbonneau commission, can the government assure us that this money was not used to obtain federal government contracts?

[Ethics, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party in the riding of Laurier—Sainte-Marie carried out a money laundering scheme. Eleven people have confirmed that they did not donate to the party, yet their names are on the donor list. There is something fishy here. We are talking about thousands of dollars in illegal donations that helped get the Minister of Industry elected.

Who is responsible? Where did this money come from? Will the government ask the RCMP to investigate?

[Bullying, November 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained the last time I commented on this bill, I am saddened by the extent to which people, especially young people, are affected by bullying.

For example, we all remember Marjorie Raymond, a young, 15-year-old girl from Gaspésie who committed suicide last year, after years of bullying at school. We also remember Jamie Hubley, another 15-year-old from Ottawa, who took his own life last year after being humiliated and insulted by classmates because of his homosexuality.

We all want to put an end to bullying. However, the approach by the Conservative Party and the NDP will do nothing to address the issue. Even if the challenge is enormous, we already see many potential solutions, both in the provinces and abroad, and the fact that we only put off everything until later without committing to any action could leave us without a solution to fight against this serious problem affecting our society.

The federal government has a role to play in combatting bullying, and here it should be noted that the previous Liberal government was active in this regard. When I was first elected to the House in 2002, the then Minister of Justice, Martin Cauchon, initiated an anti-bullying ad campaign and boasted that through the national crime prevention strategy, the government of the day was involved in over a hundred projects across the country designed to deal with the question of bullying.

One example was the then minister for multiculturalism, Jean Augustine, who spoke in the House of the program called reaching across differences, which provided information and training to elementary school children in British Columbia to increase their awareness of the impact of discrimination and bullying.

Here we must remember that bullying needs to be addressed from multiple angles, as a question of justice, of safety and health, of multiculturalism, of education, of the status of women and so on. One cannot adopt a myopic approach that treats the matter as solely something for the criminal law to be addressed after the fact. Prevention is the key.

Regrettably, how to prevent bullying is not an easy question. Many groups have studied the question and report back that it involves families, teachers, schools, communities and fostering a culture that goes beyond zero tolerance, to use a phrase from the Fondation Jasmin Roy, to 100% intervention. Many of the efforts in this regard involve items of provincial jurisdiction, such as education or realms the law does not touch easily, such as what our children see on television or even what they observe in their own homes.

That said, there exists a plethora of groups and initiatives in communities across the country that the government should continue to support. Moreover, Ottawa must collaborate with the provinces to ensure that each level of government is supported by the other to ensure maximum efficiency and that redundant efforts are not made. In short, we need a comprehensive and collaborative national bullying strategy. This is something on which we can all agree.

Unfortunately, today, we are not debating a strategy or a bill. Instead, we are debating a motion to create a special committee that will study the issue for 12 months and then write a report.

This is the main issue: if we adopt this motion, we will study the problem for 12 months, and we will create a report that will require nothing from anyone and might not lead to any bill and any additional funding to community organizations. We will only have a nice report with black ink on white pages that the government will be able to ignore as soon as it comes off the press. How will this contribute to improving life for our young people? That's what we call putting off things.

While I emphasize the need for a national bullying strategy, I am concerned about a process that gives the Conservatives a blank cheque to say what they feel is appropriate and will only result in a report to be issued in a year from now, which could easily be ignored.

Moreover, the motion itself does not define the scope of bullying to be studied by the committee, such that committee meetings on this could look at union busting, political intimidation and other types of intimidation that may not involve young people at all.

As I mentioned, various governments have looked at this question previously in response to a spate of teen suicides resulting from bullying. Numerous American states have changed their laws to address the epidemic of bullying, in particular, cyberbullying.

In that regard, my colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, proposed legislation that passed in the House at second reading to ensure that cyberbullying would be caught by Canada's Criminal Code. I look forward to Bill C-273 coming back from the justice committee and being adopted by the House.

Such concrete actions are what the House should be studying and adopting rather than engaging in the exercise of study yet again. We have plenty of examples to turn to from around the world. In the U.K., for example, the education and inspections act gives headteachers the power to regulate the conduct of pupils when they are not on school premises and are not under the lawful control or charge of a member of school staff. This can relate to any bullying incidents occurring anywhere off school premises, such as on school or public transport, outside local shops or in a town centre, for example.

The U.S. state of Maryland has one of the most aggressive anti-bullying laws in the country, with students encouraged to fill out anonymous forms when incidents occur, protections for students who blow the whistle and reports of incidents published by schools are accessible to parents so they can monitor the school climate.

Simply put, there is no shortage of ideas out there for how to combat bullying and we all agree that this is a grave problem that must addressed urgently. In that regard, I do not fault the sponsor of this motion for wanting to help. We all want to help and do what we can. My biggest concern is that he proposes the committee trust the Conservative majority to come up with a solution.

As I noted at the outset, bullying is an epidemic in our country that all too often has tragic consequences. I applaud the parents, teachers and community groups seeking to make a stand and improve the lives of youth affected by bullying. I hope Parliament will also play its part for we must all work together to make the bullying of young people a thing of the past.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 7th, 2012]

With regard to government communications: (a) what is the (i) headline or subject line, (ii) date, (iii) file or code-number, (iv) subject-matter of each press release which contains the phrase “Harper government” issued by each government department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body since May 1, 2012; (b) for each such press release, was it distributed (i) on the web site of the issuing department, agency, office, Crown corporation, or other government body, (ii) on Marketwire, (iii) on Canada Newswire, (iv) on any other commercial wire or distribution service, specifying which such service; and (c) for each press release distributed by a commercial wire or distribution service mentioned in (b)(ii) through (b)(iv), what was the cost of using that service?

[Petitions, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today from petitioners who are asking for a royal commission on the environment and health.

The commission's mandate would be to examine and make recommendations regarding all aspects of the environmental and health impacts of industrial activity in Canada and the application of the precautionary principle, which protects public health and the environment from uncertain risks, to the regulation of both industrial processes and the production, distribution and availability of consumer goods in Canada.