moved that Bill C-277, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genital mutilation of female persons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, my heart is filled with emotion as I open debate today on Bill C-277, an act to amend the Criminal Code (genital mutilation of female persons). It is filled with emotion because this bill deals with a cruel practice to which millions of women are subjected in the name of a so-called cultural value.
What I am trying to do today is help prevent mutilation of female genitals at least in Canada and Quebec. My heart is also filled with emotion because I realize that I am speaking for a great many women who will never get to speak publicly. I am referring to the victims of this practice.
Finally, I will be delivering my speech with great respect, respect for immigrant women, foreign cultures and ethnic communities. This respect should underlie every word spoken on the subject of traditions, for traditions are part of every human being's make-up and respect for human beings is what my bill is all about.
The purpose of this bill is twofold: to deter and protect; to protect innocent victims, and deter any would-be offender. That is why the bill has two parts: criminalization of the act per se, and punishment for anyone involved.
Moving to the heart of the matter, allow me to set the problem in context by briefly recapitulating the facts and figures regarding genital mutilation of female persons, then summarizing arguments in favour of such practice and, finally, setting this practice in the Canadian sociopolitical context.
First, the facts. To give a better idea of what genital mutilation means, let me describe briefly the three different operations currently performed. The first one is circumcision, or sunna, in which the tip of the clitoris is removed. The second is called extended circumcision, and involves the complete excision of the clitoris or partial excision of the labia minora and labia majora and the stitching of the genitals except for a small meatus. As for infibulation, it is similar to extended circumcision, with the added feature of suturing with a product supposed to fasten the wound.
Depending on the country, the act is performed by a barber, a midwife, an elder, or a health professional. It is estimated that there are currently between 80 and 120 million excised women and young girls, mainly in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
In October 1994, La Presse reported that 6,000 girls between the ages of 7 and 22 are excised everyday. Six thousand per day, Madam Speaker. This is a situation of concern to me and I hope that it will be of concern to other members as well. On May 22, the international press reported the case of a ten-year old Egyptian girl who died after being excised; her 12-year old sister was admitted to hospital in serious condition.
Having heard the technical description of the operation, we can easily imagine the serious effects it must have on the women on whom it is performed. Here are a few among those on record: haemorrhaging, infections, obstetrical complications, cysto-vaginal or rectovaginal fistula, cysts, violent pain, impaired sexual response, psychological disorders, and death.
In addition to this long list of possible consequences, there is another specific problem affecting excised women who immigrate to Canada. When these women realize that they are "different", they may experience problems in their social and love lives. For example, during a medical consultation with female practitioners who were not aware of that practice, a social worker helping immigrants told of many mutilated fiancees or wives who were abandoned by their partners after these men had sexual relations with women who had not been excised. Imagine the double trauma experienced by these women who are mutilated and then abandoned, which is of course contrary to the expectations generated by their traditional family environment.
Because this operation is still common in many regions of the world, there are many explanations justifying it. Some are more esoteric than others, but all are objectively wrong. I will mention a few of the more surprising ones, without commenting.
Childbirth is easier for the excised woman. Female genital organs produce smelly and unsanitary secretions. Male circumcision is done for aesthetic reasons; consequently, women should undergo a similar type of operation. The clitoris could kill a first child, especially if the child's head touches it during delivery. Women whose clitoris is intact become nymphomaniacs. The clitoris generates too much excitement for the man. Virginity is preserved. Fertility increases, since female genital secretions kill sperm.
Those are the arguments most often used to justify these types of genital mutilation. I want to point out that, contrary to popular belief, no religion prescribes genital mutilation of female persons.
Although genital mutilation may seem a problem occurring far away from us, according to some witnesses, it happens here, in Canada and in Quebec. Since our society is open to immigrants, this tradition that goes against our values has unfortunately been imported along with other values more similar to ours.
Between 1986 and 1991, Canada has accepted 40,000 immigrants from countries where mutilation is an accepted fact of life. In 1992 alone, 3,245 persons from countries where genital mutilation is tolerated or encouraged have settled in Canada.
As I said earlier, we have been told that little girls are subject to genital mutilation here, in our country. These last few years, health professionals and people working with some cultural communities have been able to confirm this situation. It is hard to put a figure to such a taboo. However, physicians have reported being asked by parents to perform mutilation on their young daughters. Other physicians have had to operate on children to repair the damage caused by such mutilations.
Social workers have been in contact with victims or families of victims who have told them about this practice. Recently, in May 1994, the director of the Ottawa African Resource Centre stated that many African immigrants manage to subject their daughters to mutilation in Canada, despite a directive to the contrary from the College of Physicians of Ontario. He said that families were sending their daughters overseas to be mutilated. We know that several Canadian physicians have been asked to perform genital mutilation. He adds that the fears publicly expressed by a Somalian woman were founded, since the African community checks whether the girls have undergone this operation.
This is a serious issue that calls for action in the name of the moral and human values we share. One of the reasons why no action has been taken against this practice may be the Canadian multiculturalism policy, which has been rejected by Quebec and is highly controversial in English Canada and also among the Liberal members themselves. Some people attribute the lack of legal action to the confusion experienced by social workers, community stakeholders and the police. Others feel that they should respect the traditions of the various groups now living in Canada, since all cultures are equal, whatever their customs.
In the current multiculturalism context, more than a few people are paralyzed by the fear of being labelled as ethnocentric or racist.
Moreover, it would appear that this uncertainty, which is the direct result of the multiculturalism policy, is far from being removed. For example, we recently read in the daily La Presse that, because of this policy, Canada was identified by the world Islamic movement as an ideal place for Muslim immigrants to be exempt from the application of civil laws and instead be subjected to the sharia which, as you know, does not respect at all the principle of equality between men and women.
When you read things like that, the feeling of helplessness of social and community stakeholders comes as no surprise. In fact, these workers might be reluctant to sue members of immigrant families perpetuating the practice of female genital mutilation.
We talked about the Multiculturalism Act. Let us now take a look at the overall legislative framework related to genital mutilation. This is an important issue, because the Minister of Justice refuses to amend the legislation. Currently, there is no legislative provision which expressly prohibits that practice.
However, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, proceedings could be instituted under some sections of the Criminal Code which relate to assault and bodily harm. It should also be mentioned that this practice violates the provincial acts protecting children, various charters of rights and freedoms and international agreements.
Our bill would complement the existing legislation by reinforcing it. As I said at the beginning, the bill is twofold. By adding another provision to the section dealing with dangerous bodily harm, we would officially recognize that this practice is harmful and dangerous to the individual. Also, the operation itself would be criminalized, and a penalty is provided for those directly or indirectly involved in the procedure.
To include that clause in the Criminal Code would leave no doubt as to the legal status of the practice. It would become a criminal act carrying a term of up to five years imprisonment. The members of cultural communities which promote this practice will immediately be informed and warned officially that in our country, genital mutilations are considered mutilations, not just a tradition. There is no reason for us to hesitate about adding a section to the Criminal Code regarding this issue.
In fact, the Code already contains sections prohibiting acts which are foreign to our culture and no one ever formally complained. I cite as examples sections 290 and 293 which prohibit bigamy and polygamy. In my humble opinion, these acts are much less harmful to the health of women, yet they have already found their place in the Code. This refutes, I believe, the minister's argument that we should not unduly encumber the Criminal Code.
Another reason the Minister of Justice says there is no need to act is that charges can already be laid under existing sections in the Code. Theoretically, the minister is correct. However, for the reasons invoked to explain why to this day no lawsuits have been filed, in particular those I mentioned earlier, I am of the opposite opinion and I firmly believe that we must adopt a very precise section which unequivocally sets out the nature of the prohibited act and prohibits participation in such an act.
In addition to this need for judicial precision, adopting a bill would meet another need which the government rarely addresses: defining the social policy of multiculturalism. We must bear in mind that the act is not just applied and interpreted in this House, but well beyond it. Acts are written for the whole public, and the public is feeling the concrete effects of this problem. We have this problem precisely because of the big fuss that our
governments have made over the wonderful multiculturalism policy.
To correct this problem we must formally define the limits of government policy by clearly stating which cultural practices are not acceptable and are against the principles of our society.
Finally, the Minister of Justice believes it is preferable to concentrate on educating immigrant communities instead of introducing special legislation. I agree with the minister that public awareness campaigns and educating the public are important. They have their place in this case as they did when Parliament passed legislation on drunk driving. Members will recall the massive advertising campaign that accompanied these amendments to the legislation. The government did a good job.
Why could it not repeat the exercise, this time to prevent genital mutilation? Why not pass Bill C-277 and at the same time organize a public awareness campaign targeted to health care and social workers and immigrants from countries where mutilation is practised?
Canada would not be the first country to adopt specific measures in this respect. Other countries like Great Britain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy and one Australian state have already done so. Two American states are considering similar action. Like Canada, these countries are host countries that have to deal with cultural practices that differ from theirs and are against their principles. They have responded to this challenge.
Before I finish, I would like to mention the many instances of support for legislation against genital mutilation. First I would like to mention the now defunct Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women which in March 1994 published a detailed study on the problem in Canada and firmly recommended adopting such measures. There is also the resolution passed by the international conference on population development, which I attended, and the Canadian Council on Refugees; also the resolution passed by the International Federation of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and by the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs.
The following organizations have also spoken out in favour of legislation: the Association of Country Women of the World, the Commission des droits de la personne du Québec, the Quebec Minister of Justice, the Conseil multiculturel des femmes professionnelles, the Service d'information en contraception et sexualité du Québec, the Cercle des fermières du Québec, Violence Info, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Rights Associaton, the Mouvement des femmes chrétiennes, Quest for the Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation and the Réseau des femmes noires francophones de Toronto. When the minister declares in the House that groups concerned do not support the legislation, I really wonder where he got his information.
Here is one example. In her letter of support for my bill, Janis Burgaski, the chair of the Conseil multiculturel des femmes professionelles wrote the following: "We have come to realize that not all traditions are to be encouraged and that some are even cruel and undesirable. From having spent time in certain communities and being of the same sex, we discover that stories we considered part of the past are still true today. Under the circumstances, we believe the bill is a step in the right direction. Women oppose this type of abuse".
The Liberal Party has promised to make up time lost in the area of health and women. This government prides itself on being one of the most ardent defenders of the rights of women on the international scene. In September, it will proudly send a delegation to the conference in Beijing. I invite it to use the opportunity to announce that it has put words into action and has adopted legislation making it a criminal offence to mutilate women's genitals, as other countries have done.
I would also invite the Minister of Justice to take time to reflect. For the past several months, he has been working to criminalize certain behaviour involving the possession and use of firearms in order to protect the public and resolve certain problems. Why would he not do the same thing in another area, that of genital mutilation?
I would also invite the members of this House to support my bill and thus reaffirm women's right to bodily security. We have a responsibility to all women, regardless of where they come from or their culture of origin. In choosing a country, women should be assured that they will find there the protection to which they are entitled. This is the intent of my bill.