Bill S-209 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prize fights)
Senate bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMarch 14, 2012
- Debated in principleApril 25, 2012
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 21, 2012
- Passed the second chamberJune 5, 2013
- Became lawJune 18, 2013
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Bob RuncimanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Massimo Pacetti8 interventions in debateHe explicitly backs the bill to legalize and regulate combat sports.
- Matthew Dubé2 interventions in debateHe calls updating the law important to properly regulate the sport and thanks the sponsor for advancing the bill.
- Robert Goguen2 interventions in debateHe states he is pleased to speak in support and in favour of the bill.
- Larry W. CampbellSenate · SenatorThe bill provides an updated definition of prizefighting and exempts legitimate sports like mixed martial arts from prosecution.
- Hoang MaiHe stresses the bill simply updates the Criminal Code without promoting any sport.
- Carol HughesShe notes outdated rules and the need to reflect current fighting sports reality.
- François LapointeHe finds it worthwhile to consider supporting the bill despite its origin.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. · 2012-11-28 · Passed
What the Senate tried to change
- adds provisionsBob RuncimanAdds sports on the program of the International Paralympic Committee to the list of exempted amateur combative sports.Adopted · June 14, 2012 · Senate record
How it changed on the way
86% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (572 words introduced, 418 passed).
minor changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with one small addition to the list of permitted amateur combative sports. Clause (a) was expanded to cover events under the International Paralympic Committee as well as the Olympic Committee.
- Added Paralympic Committee to the Olympic exception in the prize-fight definition.
Before: “if the sport is on the programme of the International Olympic Committee and,”
After: “if the sport is on the programme of the International Olympic Committee or the International Paralympic Committee and,”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text supplies a clear definition of prize fight and names specific excluded activities such as boxing and MMA. However it repeatedly conditions those exclusions on provincial designations and permissions that are not further defined.
Open to argument
“designated by the province's lieutenant governor in council or by any other person or body specified by him or her”
Leaves the choice of which amateur sports qualify entirely to unnamed officials without objective criteria.“with the permission of the province's lieutenant governor in council or any other person or body specified by him or her”
Converts an otherwise listed exception into a discretionary licence that can be withheld or granted on any ground.
Clear-cut
“a boxing contest or mixed martial arts contest held in a province with the permission or under the authority of an athletic board, commission or similar body”
Names two concrete sports and ties the exception to an existing provincial regulatory body rather than an open-ended standard.“an encounter or fight with fists, hands or feet between two persons who have met for that purpose by previous arrangement made by or for them”
Supplies an objective factual test limited to the manner and purpose of the meeting.
Discretion. Provincial lieutenant governors in council and any bodies they designate retain open-ended power to add or withhold permission for entire categories of amateur combative sports.
Challenging the law itself. The undefined permission and designation powers could be attacked under section 7 of the Charter as vague or overbroad because they fail to set clear limits on what conduct remains criminal.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could readily dispute coverage by arguing that a contest had or lacked the required provincial designation or permission, turning the case into a factual inquiry about administrative acts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.