Debates of Nov. 14th, 2016

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Health

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to examine the public health effects of the ease of access and viewing of online violent and degrading sexually explicit material on children, women and men, recognizing and respecting the provincial and territorial jurisdictions in this regard, and that the said Committee report its findings to the House no later than July 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of my motion, Motion No. 47, which would instruct the Standing Committee on Health to study the public health effects of the ease of access and viewing of online violent and degrading sexually explicit material on children, women, and men.

I believe that this is an important issue. It is long overdue for consideration by this House. It is my hope that Motion No. 47 will lead to better protection for youth online, foster the healthy sexual development of youth, and combat violence against women and girls.

I want to say at the beginning of this debate that as a first-term MP, the impact of violent and sexually explicit material was not an issue I expected to bring forward when arriving here a year ago, nor was it on my radar. However, a number of organizations came to me from across my riding and across Canada and asked me to bring this matter forward.

As I started to examine the research and the information about the impact of violent and degrading sexually explicit material, I was shocked by what I found.

Some members may be wondering why I do not use the term “pornography” in the motion. When most people think of the term “pornography”, they think of the nude pictures Playboy started publishing throughout the 1960s and onward. Today's pornography is much different. In fact, it is telling that only a year ago, Playboy announced that it would stop publishing nude pictures in its magazine, because it was not profitable anymore. The market has shifted to much more explicit material, and the vast majority of it features violence and degradation.

I want to share a few statistics about sexually explicit material and the industry behind it.

In Canada, the average age of first exposure to sexually explicit material for boys is 12. Sexually explicit websites get more visitors each month than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter combined, with PornHub, the largest free site, alone receiving over 21 billion visits in 2015. Thirty-five per cent of all internet downloads are sexually explicit. Globally, this sexually explicit material is a $97-billion industry. Almost 90% of mainstream sexually explicit content features violence against women. Sexually explicit material has become the primary source of information about sex and is a significant factor in influencing the sexual behaviours of children and adolescents.

Let that sink in for a moment. A $97-billion industry that makes up 35% of all internet downloads, that is easily accessible with the click of a button, and that primarily features violence and the degradation of women, is the primary sexual educator of our youth, starting from the age of 12.

As a result, boys and girls are taught that violent and degrading sexual behaviour is acceptable and expected. This has an impact on the physical, mental, and emotional health of many young Canadians who will grow up to be fathers, mothers, doctors, teachers, and legislators.

As I researched more about this issue, it brought me back to the time, shortly after my daughter was born, when the heartbreaking story of Rehtaeh Parsons occurred, a situation I am sure all here today remember. At that time I remember asking myself, “What gave these boys the idea that it was okay to objectify and assault a heavily intoxicated young woman, and what gave them the idea that sharing the pictures of this event online was normal?” It was a story that moved me deeply at the time, seeing the impact this had on her, which ultimately led to her suicide. It was not until researching this issue that I began to make the connection between violent, sexually explicit material online and the way it is educating a generation of young people.

When I reached out to her mother, Leah Parsons, she expressed her concern about the impact of sexually explicit material, and she was one of the first to extend her support for Motion No. 47.

She writes:

Easy access to messages and visuals online that condone violent pornographic templates for our youth is setting the stage for what is considered the “norm” when it comes to the treatment of females. If my daughter was treated as a human being and not as an object to conquer she would still be here today. Societal messages directly influence rape and violence towards women.

Forty years of academic research has revealed that exposure to sexually explicit material, especially material featuring violence, is harmful to the physical and mental health of individuals, especially adolescents.

For example, in 2016, a study of over 4,500 European teenagers aged 14 to 17, published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, found:

Boys' perpetration of sexual coercion and abuse was significantly associated with regular viewing of online pornography.

A 2012 meta-analysis of over 70 academic studies published in the journal of Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity highlighted that consistent findings have emerged linking adolescent use of pornography that depicts violence with increased degrees of sexually aggressive behaviour. A Columbia University neurologist, Dr. Norman Doidge, in his book The Brain that Changes Itself, describes how sexually explicit material actually causes rewiring of neural circuits. He writes:

Sexual tastes are molded by an individual's experiences and their culture. These tastes are acquired and then wired into the brain. We are unable to distinguish our “second nature” from our “original nature” because our neuroplastic brains, once rewired, develop a new nature every bit as biological as our original.

The part of the brain he is referring to is the prefrontal cortex, the part of our brain that helps us make good and rational decisions, and there is a much more significant impact on youth because this part of the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25.

I could continue to cite study after study that reveals the impact of violent and degrading sexually explicit material on youth, but I would quickly run out of time. Instead, I want to highlight another important aspect of this issue, which is protecting youth online.

Children's and adolescents' exposure to violent sexually explicit material is a form of child abuse. As I mentioned earlier, the average age of first exposure is 12, meaning that half of youth are exposed before age 12. Yet we take a hands-off approach instead of recognizing the exposure as child abuse. The renowned Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre put it this way:

The impact of exposure to pornography, sexual exploitation and the overall sexualization of children results in traumatic and detrimental outcomes for a child. It is our view that it is society's collective responsibility to protect children outweighing concerns about censorship.... Any exposure to adult or child pornographic images is abuse and children are detrimentally harmed and further victimized by these actions.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection lists a number of ways that exposure to sexually explicit material can harm children, including increasing a child's risk of victimization, increasing a child's health risks, interfering with a child's healthy sexual development, and increasing a child's risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment. I want to note that this last point is also confirmed by the Public Health Agency of Canada, which lists exposure to sexually explicit material as a contributing factor in sibling-on-sibling abuse.

I have spoken much about the impact of viewing violent and degrading sexually explicit material. Now I want to take a moment to highlight how easily accessible it is.

A new Canadian documentary on sexually explicit material that I co-hosted a screening of a few weeks ago showed how simple it was for a nine-year-old to access violent online sexual material by using rather innocent search terms. In fact, pornography companies specifically label this material to make it easier to find or be exposed to.

Another important factor in accessibility is its cost. The majority of sexually explicit material is free. No credit card is needed. No verification is required. No child safety measures are in place. In fact, part of the reason this material is so accessible and unregulated is that Parliament has not looked at the impact of sexually explicit material since 1985, before the invention of the Internet. The 1985 Fraser Committee report found that pre-Internet 1985 sexually explicit material had already perpetrated “lies about aspects of women's humanity and denies the validity of their aspirations to be treated as full and equal citizens”.

Some might be wondering why, if violent sexual content is so harmful, we are not seeing it in society. We are seeing it. Consider that as many as one in six girls and one in 12 boys are currently experiencing sexual abuse. Dr. Peter Silverstone, co-author of the new study from of the University of Alberta, said,

When all types of sexual abuse are combined, including exposure to pornography or other sexual material, the number of children sexually abused is as high as 1 in 3 girls and 1 in 6 boys.

That is staggering, and it is shameful that we have done nothing about this for over 30 years.

I believe that this issue cuts across political lines. The Prime Minister has stated, “There's issues around pornography and its prevalence now and its accessibility, which is something that I'm really wrapping my head around as a father of kids who are approaching their teen years”.

Ms. Sophie Grégoire Trudeau has also raised this concern by saying, “The objectification of the female body, the normalization of pornography, and rape language and culture is destroying the self-esteem of our girls and is an insult to the spirit of our boys”. I particularly appreciate her concern about how this issue affects both boys and girls.

I would also note that former NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis and Conservative MP Joy Smith have similarly highlighted this as one of the top concerns for families across our nation. I am also grateful that Motion No. 47 has been jointly seconded by MPs from all five political parties in this Parliament. That is not a common experience and I want to extend my sincere thanks to each of these MPs who have officially extended their support.

I would also like to thank the member for Mount Royal for his discussions and insights. He is concerned about the infringement of civil liberties. To him, I would draw the analogy between the Internet and our road system. In Canada, we have freedom of movement. We have an extensive road system available to all Canadians. We may walk or ride bikes on roads anywhere in Canada, really without restriction. However, if we wish to use roads for particular things, such as transporting large items, licences or permits are required. Other things are also prohibited when it comes to road use. Speeding and racing are a couple of examples.

The Internet is public domain and we all need to be responsible with its use. If we could solve the issues of online sexual violence without passing a single new law, I would be overjoyed. My motion does not put forward any policy directives. We need to work together to end sexual violence everywhere. A good place to start is understanding what drives societal mindsets.

Civil liberties are immensely important to me. I know that the member for Mount Royal and I have in common a desire to defend civil liberties. I would also note that during his time as mayor of Côte-Saint-Luc, he and his council were viewed as one of the most innovative councils in Quebec. Therefore, I reach out to the member for Mount Royal and his entire caucus to work with us to ensure that civil liberties are maintained and that safety on the Internet is a reality.

Last and certainly not least, this motion has garnered strong support from coast to coast to coast, across a diverse array of over 40 organizations. From the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee in B.C. to the Newfoundland and Labrador Feminist and Allies, to the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, this is an issue that many care about deeply.

I am grateful for the support of Crossroads Resource Centre and Women's Shelter, and the Caribou Child & Youth Centre, which serve women and youth in my riding in northern Alberta.

As parents and policy-makers, we have a shared responsibility to see that young boys and girls grow up to develop positive attitudes on sexuality that foster dignity instead of objectification, and affection instead of coercion. That is a Canada that we all seek, and I hope that I have everyone's support for Motion No. 47.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an incredibly important topic and I want to ask the member a question.

The Standing Committee on that Status of Women is doing a study on violence against young women and girls, which includes cybersexual violence and cyberbullying. Could the hon. member please explain how the health committee study would complement and add to that work, and in what ways that study would be different and create a fuller understanding?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am aware that the status of women committee is doing a study on similar grounds. However, I would point out that whereas that committee is looking at how it happens, we already know that the Internet is full of this but need to know what impact it is having on the health of Canadians. That is significantly different in terms of scope.

I specifically targeted the health committee to study this, because I do not think it needs to be a justice or a status of women issue. There is also a vast array of impacts that affect men as well as women and children. That is why I suggest we need to look at other health impacts on the broad range of Canadians.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this important issue because increasingly easy access is a menace.

My question is along the same lines as my colleague's.

This issue needs to be looked at in committee. As an action-oriented person who wants results fast, I wonder why my colleague did not take this motion directly to the Standing Committee on Health. That would have enabled us to minimize delays and get this study going much faster.

Several committees have an interest in this subject, but since the motion calls on the Standing Committee on Health, why did he not put it before the committee directly?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an important issue that requires the attention of all Canadians.

To put it on the radar, one of the things we are working on is to start a dialogue across the country with the motion. Putting it before the health committee directly would not spark that discussion across the country. That is why I have done it this way.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up this very important topic.

As the chair of the status of women committee, I concur that we have heard lots of testimony on pornography being a really a significant issue in the formative behaviours of both young girls and young men.

I noticed there was a date of July 2017 in the motion, by which time the health committee would be required to report. Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we definitely put July 2017 on the list. When I crafted the motion shortly after I was elected, nearly a year ago, I anticipated that July 2017 would allow a lot of time for the committee to get it done. However, I figured that I would be up for my first hour of debate back in March, which never happened, so I would be open to a friendly amendment on the date, if needed.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the excellent work and background research he has done on this issue.

As a father and grandfather, I find this to be a very troubling issue. It should be troubling to all Canadians, and particularly parliamentarians.

The motion instructs the committee to conduct a study. I wonder why my colleague would not simply have recommended a policy that we could adopt, rather than going to committee for study.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not put any particular policy in the motion because I felt that we needed to work together to come up with solutions that would work for everyone. I did not want to make this a partisan issue, so I put it together, thinking that we could do it at the committee level. We should all be able to support whatever comes out of that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the motion and I believe that members will find that Canadians as a whole appreciate and understand the severity of the issue before us today. The member made reference to individuals and groups who have been supportive of the motion. I would like to add that the government will also be supporting the motion and sees its merit.

This is an issue that is close to the hearts of many Canadians, and it does not matter from which region of the country. Given the severity of the problem, I suspect it would be a challenge to find any noteworthy public policy organization that would oppose a motion of this nature to try to come up with ways we can better deliver programs and services, or at the very least, to get a better understanding of this.

The motion would require the Standing Committee on Health to conduct a study on the health effects of the growing problem of online sexual abuse, particularly against women and children. As pointed out, the committee on the status of women is also doing a study, but one that is somewhat different from what the member is proposing. Therefore, as I indicated, we are comfortable in supporting the motion before us.

It is important to recognize that the subject of the proposed study is consistent with the commitments in the 2015 Speech from the Throne to provide greater security for Canadians. In fact, members will find that the government's agenda to develop and implement a federal strategy against gender-based violence is in the mandate letters of the Minister of Status of Women, Minister of Justice, Minister of Public Safety, and the President of the Treasury Board. As well, the government is committed to undertaking an independent national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

The motion is also in line with the focus in budget 2016 on building evidence-based policies. I would suggest this is an excellent way for us, as legislators, to look at policy options. It is one of the things that I believe will be a good path for us to hopefully come up with a better understanding for better policy direction by the government.

Through the national strategy for the protection of children from sexual exploitation on the Internet, our government is in fact working to enhance the tools required for prevention, investigation, and prosecution of those who prey on children online. The government is also investing in research and programs to prevent and respond to the trauma of family violence, including guidance for care providers and essential services in communities.

However, there is always room to do more, and as the Prime Minister has indicated, we can always do better. Motion No. 47 is a way to gain a deeper knowledge and understanding of the health effects of online violence and degrading, sexually explicit material.

The issue before us is not new, and every year the Internet becomes more and more accessible. However, when I was first elected many years ago, the Internet did not exist. If we look at the laws and the government programs and policies in place at the time, there was nothing that one could compare to this problem. We could cite these issues in the Criminal Code, but they fall short in addressing the severity of this issue.

Some of the most touching discussions I have had is with law enforcement agencies who have had to deal with the issue of child exploitation through pornographic material and other types of horrific acts, which are so accessible through the Internet today. It has had a very profound impact on society, and not for the better.

The Internet has been a blessing to society in many different ways, but there are some significant issues and drawbacks that have arisen that have really been detrimental to society. The issue of child pornography and information accessed through the Internet dealing with the abuse of women and young children is totally and completely unacceptable.

We as legislators need to do what we can to combat this. The violence taking place in society today can often be attributed to what has been witnessed, whether on the Internet or on TV. To say that we as legislators play no role would be abdicating our responsibilities in trying to provide for a better society.

In his remarks, the member referenced this as an industry that generates billions of dollars, with hundreds of millions of viewers. It is an industry that is, unfortunately, far too healthy. We need to look at ways we can prevent that industry not only from growing, because of the damage it has caused to society, but ways we can put in some limitations that would protect the interests of society as a whole, and in particular, those who have been victims of abuse, sexual or otherwise.

There are strong advocates, in particular women's advocacy groups and children's advocacy groups. We need to recognize that there are victims in both genders. As the member referenced, our Prime Minister's wife has been a very strong advocate on the sensitivities of this issue and the call for legislators to take action.

In the motion, the member makes reference to respecting other jurisdictions. I would interpret that by recognizing that not only do we here in Ottawa have a role to play, but also provincial legislatures, school boards, municipal governments, and many different stakeholders all have a role to play in this.

There will be a second hour of debate, and I believe the motion will ultimately go to committee for study. It is important that Canada as a nation, the government, and the House of Commons all have a role to play. It is one of leadership. The things that are talked about in the House and the studies that will come out of the standing committees, whether it is the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the material that will be researched, and the drawing of witnesses from across Canada to participate would all ensure we come up with some good, solid recommendations that would ultimately make a difference.

I appreciate the member has put in a timeline of July, 2017. That is a responsible timeline. Some have suggested it could be earlier. We are providing a fairly clear direction here, allowing for the health committee to do its work in a timely fashion. I trust that many on the committee and many of the presenters will generate ideas that would hopefully assist us as legislators to demonstrate strong national leadership by bringing in some recommendations that would really make a difference.

We owe it to our children. We owe it to our society to improve the Internet. The Internet is a super fantastic thing, but there are some issues that need to be dealt with. This is just one of those issues, but one of the most significant, and it needs to be dealt with.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I was a little surprised when I read this motion. New Democrats will support Motion No. 47, but I do have some comments to share with the sponsor.

I really had to wonder why the member chose to present this kind of motion to the House. I would have expected such a motion to go directly to the Standing Committee on Health. Nevertheless, the member for Peace River—Westlock moved Motion No. 47 in the House, so now we must debate it.

I get how important this issue is, but if it truly matters to him, I think it would have been more efficient to put the motion before the committee so that it could have started its study sooner. In fact, this motion could have been put to a number of committees so they could study it in depth and figure out how to protect our children from this public health threat.

It has been more than 30 years since Parliament last debated pornography. Back then, there was no Internet, so that is why we need to talk about it again. I agree that we need some current data on the effects of violent pornography.

However, I want to see concerted action, not only at the Standing Committee on Health, but within a number of committees, so as to ensure that we take a comprehensive approach and act meaningfully. From my research I learned that many difficulties associated with pornography stem from the fact that no one seems to agree on how to define the term. According to the House of Commons website, criminal law does not refer to pornography but rather obscenity, except in an amendment made in 1993 on child pornography.

In 1988, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women proposed the following definition of pornography:

Pornography is the representation or description of violent or degrading behaviour or behaviour that causes or could cause death, when that behaviour is inflicted by one individual on another, or by that individual on themselves, represented or described for the express purpose of sexually stimulating or gratifying the spectator, reader, or listener; especially when such behaviour can be taken to be advocated or endorsed.

I am now quoting from the House of Commons website:

Notwithstanding the uncertainties of definition, many believe that material that depicts violence toward—or demeans—women is demonstrably harmful and should be controlled. There is, however, considerable divergence on the appropriate strategy.

The committee needs to study this. The quotation continues:

Harm is said to flow from pornography in two ways. First, it is theorized that there is a direct causal link between violent pornography and violence against women, so that such material can act as a “trigger” to aggression. Second, it is said that pornography contributes in a general way to myths about sexuality and about women that ultimately make violence and degradation more acceptable to society as a whole. According to this view, distinctions among types of pornography are invidious. Such material constitutes a continuum: consumers are desensitized or numbed by “soft” pornography, the wide distribution of which makes the allegedly more directly harmful “hard” pornography easier to accept and, indeed, encourages its production.

The NDP recognizes that the increasing ease of access to violent and sexual material online can be a problem for our society. The consequences of accessing such material to male sexuality, such as erectile dysfunction, pushes men to watch ever more violent pornographic videos. Likewise, watching violent pornographic material might lower women's self-esteem .

It has also been proven that individuals who watch such material could be more inclined to normalize sexual violence.

The new Democrats are very concerned about the public's increased access to violent and extreme pornographic content, which shows explicit scenes of degradation and sexual violence for the purpose of sexual arousal. Given the number of consumers of violent pornography, there is a growing risk of normalization that can result from constant exposure or dependence on violent pornography. There is the danger of progressive normalization of pornography, which would lead people to believe that moral coercion and physical violence is acceptable.

We must take action to ensure that violent and sexually explicit content is not readily accessible by children. We must do something about this. We believe that action must be taken and access to this type of content must be controlled on several levels and in a concerted manner. We want to protect our children from sexually explicit content that could impact their health.

My research indicates that all studies of violent pornography contradict one another to a great extent. For example, according to the organization Avenir de la culture, a study conducted by one of the leading researchers in this field, Professor Neil M. Malamuth of the University of California in Los Angeles, entitled “Predicting Sexual Aggression: The Role of Pornography in the Context of General and Specific Risk Factors”, concludes that high pornography consumption added significantly to the prediction of sexual aggression.

There is a particularly high correlation between the frequent use of pornography and sexually aggressive behaviour among those who are already strongly predisposed to sexual aggression. In other words, among those at the highest predisposing risk level for sexual aggression, those who are very frequent pornography users have sexual aggression levels approximately four times higher than their counterparts who do not very frequently consume pornography.

However, the studies presented in Contrepoints show that European researchers did not come to the same conclusions. They did not find that users of what they classified as violent pornography were more aggressive than non-users.

I therefore believe that it is important that the committee conduct further research in this area. Whom are we to believe? I agree with the member that we need to do everything we can to protect our children against the destructive effects of violent Internet pornography.

That is why we need to ensure that the committee conducts a full study of this issue and proposes solutions and recommendations so that we, as parliamentarians, can do what is necessary and bring in legislation for everyone's well-being.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is Monday morning and we are talking about sex in the House of Commons. Giddy-up, here we are.

The motion before us today asks the Standing Committee on Health to examine the public health effects of the ease of access and viewing of online violent and degrading sexually explicit material on children, women, and men.

Any human behaviour has its consequences, both positive and negative, and sex is no different, except that it is the most highly moralized behaviour that we have, particularly when it comes to female sexuality. For essentially the entire history of our species, female sexuality has been something to be feared, and sexual desire has been something to be suppressed and only used for purposes of reproduction, ownership, or shows of masculinity.

There have been two transformational changes in how we view sexuality that have happened in very recent history. First is the ability for women to manage their fertility. When legal and freely available, reproductive health options allow women to have access to them to bear some measure of control on whether and when they bear children.

This, in turn, has allowed women who have legal and widely available access to these options to gain higher levels of education and to enter the workforce, and for society as a whole to challenge deeply entrenched norms attached to how we are expected to behave based on the sex we have been assigned at birth. I highly doubt that I would be standing here, an elected member of Parliament, giving a speech on sexuality in the legislative chamber of a G7 country if it were not for this fact. This has also allowed women to explore their sexuality without the inevitability of child rearing.

Talking about women as empowered sexual beings with desires is something that would have scared the living daylights out of many, as little as a generation ago, and it still drives policies and edicts written by religious police in other parts of the world.

At the same time, we have been transformed by the connectedness that the Internet has blessed us with. We can reach out to somebody around the world with a few flicks of our thumbs. We can collect and manipulate data sets that were incomprehensible as little as 20 years ago. We can understand and drive prosperity in ways that we only dared to dream about in the wildest science fiction movies.

The advent of the Internet, Wi-Fi, and smart phones has also brought pornography off the shelves of stores with blotted-out windows and made it available on demand, on our phones, right here, right now. Today's porn is not our grandfather's porn either. We know that extremely violent and degrading images have become mainstream.

The tectonic collision of these two truly transformational changes is why the motion has been brought forward to us today, and I strongly applaud my colleague for bringing it forward in a timely manner before the House.

As women have become more sexually empowered, the reality is that our laws have not kept pace with the speed and access at which violent and sexually degrading materials have become available online.

As my colleague who is presenting the motion mentioned earlier this morning, it has been 30 years—well before global connectivity changed—since Canada has reviewed laws and health impacts of these types of images. As legislators, we have an obligation to ensure our constituents are protected and safe. We as legislators need to better understand the needs of our community when it comes to the availability of these types of images, the impact they have, what legislative gaps exist, and how we should address them. That is why the motion is so important and should be supported today.

Because we all have our unique sexual preferences, we need to resist the urge to move the debate to polar extremes: pearl-clutching versus total disregard for the fact that violent and degrading sexual images do in fact have a significant impact on our community. For me, we as legislators need to address issues related to sexuality in the context of the following principles.

The first is consent, with an understanding that sexual consent is something that should be enthusiastic and expressed by all partners, that it can be withdrawn at any point in time, and that there are situations in which consent cannot be granted. The second is safety: that we embrace and celebrate the promotion of safe sexual health. Third is pleasure and respect: that sex is something that should cause pleasure for all partners in the broad range of meanings and terms that we ascribe to that, and that partners engage in sex in the context of mutual respect.

My colleague's motion would allow us to review the impact of violent and sexually degrading images on our ability to protect our population in a sex-positive context, as well as a broad variety of other issues. Given that the government has committed to supporting the motion, some of the information that I would be keen to hear during the course of the study is the effect of violent and sexually degrading images on our ability to educate our children about safe sex, consent, and pleasure.

When I was in Copenhagen earlier this year for the Women Deliver conference, I had the opportunity to meet with a group called the pleasure project, and its reason for existence is to ensure that, when we talk about safe sex and the promotion of safe sex, it does not have to be clinical, saying safe sex is bad. They want to talk about sex as a positive thing.

When I look at the prevalence of degrading and sexually violent images on the Internet, I ask if those two principles can co-exist. That is something we should be talking about. I know my colleague has put respecting the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures in the motion, but when we have debates about sexual education, do we have the data we need on that topic?

The other concern I have and would love to look at is that these images essentially teach women that their only reason for existence in a sexual relationship is to be a vehicle of pleasure for a man in very violent and degrading situations. I would like to know what this means in terms of feminist theory and how it actually affects women's rights in terms of the shaping of their sexual identities.

I also recognize that this example is given in the context of the gender binary. I would like to know what these types of images mean in terms of fetishization and degradation of trans men and women.

We should also study, within the scope of this, the effect of this industry on the health and well-being of the actors in this industry. If any of my colleagues find themselves, as I often do, at 11 p.m. looking for something on Netflix, I encourage them to watch a very difficult documentary called Hot Girls Wanted. I know that some people in the pornography industry will say that it is not indicative of all of the industry, but I was shocked to see how young women are essentially lured into this industry and then used.

I would like to hear about how the industry brings actors into it, how they are treated, and whether or not this is something that is empowering for women, which I highly doubt. In fact I would be very happy to argue against that, because it is very degrading, and it is crazy that we have not looked at the effect of the industry on the protection of women and girls.

The other thing we could study as part of the motion is the ease and availability of these images of violence against women. My colleagues who have spoken to the motion already have talked about how, when these types of behaviours become normalized through the ease of availability of these types of images that we see today, there likely is a rise in violence against women. I would be very interested in knowing about how the ease of accessibility of these images actually increases violence against women—if it does, and I am sure it does—and then what the legislative gaps or programmatic gaps are that we as legislators have responsibility to deliver on.

It would also be very interesting to talk about the effect of these images on the development of sexual identity among all genders. I will give an example. I have an acquaintance who teaches elementary school, and I asked her where the kids are at these days. Her response was that she did not expect she would have to deal with talking about anal tearing with grade 6 girls when she started teaching, because these girls think, one, that it is sexually acceptable because boys have grown up watching this; two, that they cannot get pregnant doing it that way; and three, that it is something the boys want, so they should do it. I cannot imagine being confronted by a girl of that age telling me that she had been engaging in those behaviours without any sort of context on what that means, because her partner had been looking at these types of images that have been normalized within him.

My colleague from the NDP talked about a lot of different types of research out there and there is not a lot of conclusiveness, but I am hearing unanimity in the House that there is an understanding that this is a public health problem for this country and that a study would be very beneficial in terms of informing us on what sorts of legislative gaps we should be addressing, as well as programming that could be delivered.

My hope too is that the committee, once it finishes this, comes out with some concrete recommendation in terms of follow-up on further education.

My colleague also asked why we would table it here instead of in committee. Other motions have been presented in the House that talked about assigning a study to a committee, and they have been accepted here. This is an important motion and I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to support it.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 47, which calls on the Standing Committee on Health to study the public health effects of accessing and viewing online violent and degrading sexually explicit material on children, women, and men.

Introduced by our colleague the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Motion No. 47 calls on the Standing Committee on Health to conduct a study on an issue that is growing in prevalence and something we do not yet understand enough, the public health implications.

I would like to take a moment to share with the House the reasons why I believe it is extremely important to support the motion.

The availability and accessibility of violent and sexually degrading material online is increasing, as are the number of reports of child sexual abuse images in Canada. For example, in 2015, Cybertip.ca, Canada's national tip line established to report suspected cases of child sexual exploitation on the Internet, received 38,000 reports of child sexual abuses online. This was a dramatic increase of 342% over the numbers reported in 2011, just four years earlier.

Online sexual violence against children and women, or cyberviolence, is becoming more prevalent. New technologies enable offenders to create and share child sexual abuse and sexual violence in an anonymous way, thereby creating challenging conditions for investigation and victim identification.

Those victimized as subjects of these images are largely women and children. In Canada, nearly 81% of child sexual abuse images on the Internet in 2013-14 were of girls, 79% of whom were under the age of 12.

High-profile public cases such as those of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons have raised public awareness of online sexual violence and degrading sexually explicit material and their health repercussions.

Despite the growing prevalence of this material and the ease with which it can be distributed and accessed, we do not have a good understanding of its public health implications. Studies suggest that there are long-term health consequences for victims and survivors of sexual abuse whose abuse was recorded and distributed. Studies also suggest health consequences for people who access and view this material online. Emerging studies show that the mental health of youth and children is especially affected by viewing such material. In Canada, for example, a 2016 Centre for Addiction and Mental Health study draws a correlation between the rise and use of social media and the decline of youth mental health, with girls being twice as likely as boys to experience psychological distress.

Recent studies conducted in the United States of adolescent girls and boys suggest that viewing violent and sexually explicit online images, especially pornography, influences gender norms and attitudes, which can lead to violent sexual behaviour. This emerging field of study suggests that accessing and viewing this material affects adolescents' social development, attachment, and interpersonal relationships. More study is needed to understand the impact on the adolescent brain. Adolescents may be disproportionately vulnerable to negative consequences of viewing sexually explicit material.

Internet pornography addiction is emerging as an issue. Research suggests that accessing and viewing this material is linked to deficits in cognitive control and delayed maturation, including impulsivity and affective challenges during teenage years.

The last major public study on sexually explicit material in Canada, as stated by members previously, was conducted more than 30 years ago in 1985 by the Fraser committee. That committee reported to Parliament that sexually explicit material had negative impacts on women's equality. Today the landscape has changed dramatically. Through the availability of technology, the Internet, and social media, more extreme materials have become available to more people, causing even more harm.

Addressing violence in any form requires the involvement of many sectors, and the health system has an important role to play in preventing and addressing violence.

In his annual report on the state of public health in Canada in 2016, “A Focus on Family Violence in Canada”, Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Gregory Taylor, recognizes violence as a serious health issue that affects the physical and mental health of many Canadians. In his report, Dr. Taylor points out that the impacts of violence on health can be widespread and long-lasting. These impacts go way beyond physical injury to include a higher risk for mental health issues, premature death, and chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.

In 2014, girls and women accounted for seven of every 10 reported cases of family violence. Violence against women is an extremely important public health issue in Canada and globally, and there is growing international consensus on the important role of the health system in addressing this violence.

Just this past spring, in May 2016, Canada supported the World Health Organization's global plan of action to strengthen the role of the health system in addressing interpersonal violence. The global plan of action sets out roles for the health system in programming, leadership, service delivery, and providing information and evidence. Adoption of this plan by member states around the world demonstrates the shared understanding that violence against women and children, in all of its forms, needs to be understood as a public health issue.

While the provinces and territories are generally responsible for delivery of care in Canada, the Government of Canada has a leading role to play in addressing public health issues by developing and disseminating evidence and knowledge, providing national leadership, and promoting intergovernmental collaboration on health issues. For example, while the federal health portfolio does not have programs that address online violence, Health Canada, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research focus on violence prevention through research, surveillance, and health promotion programs for survivors of family violence.

Beyond the health portfolio, the committee's study could inform the government's agenda to develop and implement a federal strategy against gender-based violence, the government's commitment to undertake an independent national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, and several ministers' mandate letter commitments to address gender-based violence. Our government is committed to evidence-based policy-making, which means that policies and programming on public health issues should continually be informed by a clear understanding of research and evidence.

A study by the Standing Committee on Health would provide an opportunity to hear from experts, researchers, and advocates for those affected by online violence and degrading sexually explicit material. Understanding the health effects of accessing and viewing violent and degrading sexually explicit online material and physical and sexual violence in Canada would help to inform future government policy development in this area. The study would also present to parliamentarians and Canadians the opportunity to learn more about a topic that is growing in prevalence, but for which the health implications remain unclear.

I am convinced that to support Motion No. 47 is to move in the right direction. I am inspired by the work done on gender-based violence, not only by federal departments and organizations, such as the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, but all of the advocacy groups across the country, especially those in support of Motion No. 47.

I would like to note that I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to this important issue and I encourage all of my hon. colleagues to support Motion No. 47 as it aligns with the current federal direction on gender-based violence. It is an opportunity to shed light on an extremely important topic and its health implications.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will have just a few minutes before we proceed to government orders.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, since I will have to deliver my speech in two parts, I will begin by talking about how young men's health is affected by pornography, which has changed a lot over the years. In the second part of my speech, I will come back to how pornography affects how women and girls perceive sexuality and violence.

The overabundance of pornography available to young men has caused many of them to become addicted to it. Clinical exams of these young men reveal the classic signs of addiction. This problem is real and this addiction is such that those who have it truly need to seek help.

Unfortunately, these same people will often tend to also look for increasingly explicit material, which can cause changes in neural connections. Something that normally would not arouse someone sexually manages to do so over time, such as the association with violence, for example. That is one of the primary problems.

It has also been noted that an increasing number of young men are developing erectile dysfunction in real life, in a real sexual relationship. They are unable to get an erection because they are used to getting sexually aroused with other materials. This creates problems in their sexual health. They develop this problem in a normal relationship and then are less likely to try to have real relationships because of erectile dysfunction. They do not want to be asked why they have this problem at age 20, 22, or 25. They will isolate themselves and tend to watch even more pornography.

These are two health problems experienced by young men. These problems have been documented, discussed, and reported on. Those reports are available.

The other problems that exist really have to do with perceptions of sexuality and the effects they can cause. It is important to understand that the content available on the Internet goes a lot further than what was available 30 years ago. It is almost beyond imagination. Pornography also depicts scenes of criminal behaviour, including gang rape for example. There is a legitimate concern when it comes to the violent content that often depicts criminal activities.

When individuals are discovering their sexuality, trying to figure out what normal sexuality is, what is not normal, and what is completely fictitious, it is easy to become confused. This is especially true for adolescents who have probably never asked their friends, family, and teachers these kinds of questions. Unfortunately, many provinces stopped offering sex education as part of their curriculum for a period of time, so those conversations never happened, unlike my own experience, when some form of sex ed actually was offered at school.

As a result, some people never had a chance to ask those questions or discuss these matters in an appropriate setting. The only resource they could turn to for answers when trying to understand sexuality and how to have a healthy sex life was what was available on the Internet. It is fair to say that what is available on the Internet in no way resembles what really happens with the vast majority of couples in their sex lives.

This could lead to a completely distorted view of sexuality, which could in turn trivialize certain behaviours.

Content that provides a completely distorted view of sexuality may cause young people to think that what they are seeing is realistic and to adopt harmful sexual behaviours. What constitutes sexual consent can often be ambiguous. What is more, very few of these films depict safe sex practices, such as the use of condoms.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will have four and a half minutes when this matter comes up for debate again.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Canada Pension Plan

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada pension plan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act and the Income Tax Act.

Since being elected a little over a year ago, I have had many conversations with my constituents in Mississauga—Streetsville, ranging from security for seniors to things that concern youth. However, one of the more consistent concerns that has been brought to my attention is what our government is doing to help working-class Canadians who are looking to retire.

Many of my constituents have contacted my office and explained to me that even though they have been working hard their entire adult life, they are not confident they can safely retire. I know my constituents are not the only Canadians who have such concerns. All across the country, middle-class Canadians are working harder than ever, yet they are deeply concerned that they do not have enough money saved for a stable retirement.

More than one-quarter of Canadian families are nearing retirement and each year fewer and fewer Canadians have workplace pensions to fall back on. This leaves approximately 1.1 million families facing the intimidating risk of not having enough money saved to maintain their standard of living when they retire.

These Canadians fear that because of this, they will have to work for longer than they had planned and ultimately miss out on spending precious time with their families. As a result of this, a grandfather may not be able to take his grandchildren on a camping trip or may miss their sporting events because he could not get time off from work. A mother may have to cancel the road trip she was planning with her daughter for years, because she was called in for a last-minute shift. Ultimately, many Canadians will miss out on many important moments.

However, it is not just families nearing retirement that are concerned with this issue. Over the past year, I have met with any young Canadians who are just finishing school and are about to enter the workforce. They are concerned that with fewer jobs offering workplace pension plans, they will find it difficult to save enough of their earnings for a stable retirement.

It is no secret that Canadians are living longer lives. Although we should be grateful for this, longer life expectancies ultimately mean that the level of savings required to achieve a stable retirement is increased. With the population of my riding expecting to grow by 4% over the next 15 years and 6% over the next 25, there will only be more constituents with the same concerns if these issues are not addressed. However, I am confident that this bill addresses the concerns of my constituents and many Canadians across the country.

With all nine Canada pension plan participating provinces confirming their support, I know I am not the only person who has confidence in the bill.

Once it takes effect, Bill C-26 will increase the maximum Canada pension plan retirement benefit by roughly 50%. Currently, the maximum benefit is $13,110. However, after this enhancement, the number will increase by roughly $7,000 for a maximum benefit of $20,000.

Bill C-26 would do two very crucial things. It would increase the amount of money Canadians would get from their pension from one-quarter of their earnings to one-third. This means that a hard-working Canadian making $50,000 annually would received $16,000 annually in retirement. The bill would also increase the maximum income range covered by the Canada pension plan by 14% so that those who earn more will receive more in retirement.

We have heard from our colleagues that they are concerned that the cost of the bill would put a significant strain on taxpayers. To answer this, the government is ensuring that the changes in contributions will be phased-in slowly over seven years, which will give individuals and employers sufficient time to adjust to the minor increase. For low-income workers who may be concerned about the change in contributions, the legislation would provide an enhancement to the working income tax benefit designed to provide additional benefits that would offset the incremental Canada pension plan contribution.

Furthermore, it is important to note that contributions to the enhanced portion of the Canada pension plan will be deductible. Providing a tax deduction for new employee Canada pension plan contributions will avoid increasing the after-tax cost of savings for Canadians. For employers, employer contributions to the enhanced portion of the Canada pension plan will be deductible for income for tax purposes. For self-employed Canadians who contribute both the employer and employee share of the Canada pension plan, they will be able to deduct both the employee and employer share of contributions to the enhanced portion of the CPP.

Last week, I visited many local high schools and spent time speaking to hundreds of students. When discussing the proposed Canada pension plan enhancement, these young individuals overwhelmingly supported the legislation. They understood and supported the idea of small, incremental increases in contributions to ensure a secure and stable pension.

It is young people like the ones I met last week who will be inheriting the policies and programs we create today. The support of these young people should be a testament as to why all members in the House should support the bill. We, as members of Parliament, must think of them when debating legislation in the House. I am confident the bill will have a positive impact on the future of young Canadians, which is why I am proud to be speaking to the bill today.

During my campaign last year, I had many young volunteers helping me. When I was elected, I promised to be their advocate in Ottawa. By standing here today to speak to the bill, a bill that would have a positive impact on their future, I know I am fulfilling that promise. The positive impact the bill can have is truly significant. The bill would ensure that every Canadian worker could retire with a safe and secure pension. Young Canadians entering the workforce could enter with confidence, knowing that legislation would be in place to ensure they would have enough saved when the time comes for them to retire.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned how he talked to his constituents and heard their concerns. We recognize some people have concerns, and we know who they are. They are elderly widows and people with lower incomes. However, the program being proposed by the government has no benefit for anyone for the next 40 years. Finance Canada has said that it would have very detrimental affects in the next 30 years. Also, when it does come into effect, it benefits only 8%. Therefore, why does the member think this is such a good plan?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very pejorative interpretation of what the bill intends to do. As I mentioned, I spoke to many high school students. I told them that we had an aging population that would need medical assistance, that would retire all at once and that they would have to foot the bill or incur the cost of that. They agreed we should prepare for that situation right now. It is prudent for our government to put these parameters in place so they will not have to incur those costs later on.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, exactly what you sell is what you get. He sold it that way. I tried to sell it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address his comments and questions to the Chair.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at him, but I am speaking to you.

The question is, which is the most critical point, the effect on business. Businesses will take a tax on this. It will make them lose jobs eventually, and there will be a levy on business operations. Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague sold this as a tax. We see this as an investment. It is an investment in Canadians who have worked very hard to create our country that we enjoy today. It is an investment in future Canadians so they will not have to incur a larger cost due to an aging population.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question is about Canadians who need this help now, seniors who cannot afford to live, cannot afford their medication, cannot afford their rent because of unaffordable housing. This will not take place for 49 years.

The member says he cares about the people in his community who are suffering right now. What measures is the government taking to help seniors today?