I'll need to go in French on this one.
Thank you.
I'll make a comment before asking my question. I'm against all forms of violence and lack of respect, regardless of the activity. I wouldn't want my questions to suggest otherwise.
The government is a legislator and it must take measures or propose rules. I think that, when it comes to the involvement of children, extreme violence, rape and lack of consent, obviously no one supports these types of activities. I don't think that's the issue. I'll refer to my colleague Mr. Carrie's analogy regarding Fifty Shades of Grey. The issue is the area between the two, between what's obvious and what may appear to be some leeway in terms of each person's level of tolerance.
You're proposing a Canadian sexual health program. I hope we're talking about good health. Who sets the standards for good health? The motion focuses primarily on online violence and degrading behaviour. We're talking not only about physical illnesses, but also about mental health and addiction. What may seem less obvious is found in the grey area between what's tolerated by some and less tolerated by others. What some people do, and what seems to be tolerated and accepted, could appear violent to others.
Where's the line? Who decides where the line is drawn? What points of reference are used by the people who draw the line?
A program established by a person who has zero tolerance could differ significantly from a program prepared by someone whose behaviour is much more libertine.
Thank you.