I'll ask you one more question on law before we turn to the health and research issues. You're quite right, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on these sections of the code in a leading case called R. v. Butler. Writing for the majority, Justice Sopinka divided pornography into three categories: explicit sex with violence, explicit sex without violence but which subjects people to treatment that is degrading or dehumanizing, and explicit sex without violence that is neither degrading nor dehumanizing.
In talking about these categories, he wrote:
In making this determination with respect to the three categories of pornography...the portrayal of sex coupled with violence will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex—
—and therefore be illegal. He continued:
Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial. Finally, explicit sex that is not violent and neither degrading nor dehumanizing is generally tolerated in our society and will not qualify as the undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its production.
Justice Sopinka and the Supreme Court of Canada have declared that any pornography that has violence in it is already illegal. Sex, or what is commonly referred to as erotica, that is simply the portrayal of sex without any violence or degradation or dehumanization is legal. It's that middle category that I think your motion or bill speaks to, which is sex that is not violent but is degrading or dehumanizing and may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial.
Mr. Viersen, would it be fair to say that what you'd like this committee to focus on is research to help inform a court of the law in the future to determine if the portrayal of sex as degrading or dehumanizing creates a risk of harm?