Debates of June 6th, 1995

Budget Implementation Act, 1995

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

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.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her initiative in bringing forward the motion today. This is an issue like many horrors that is easily ignored, an issue we must face and about which I feel very strongly.

This is not an issue, however, that the government has ignored. The hon. Minister of Justice assured me in discussions we have had that it has been on the agenda for approximately one year, that he has taken the time to meet with members of cultural groups and to meet with women in Canada concerned about the particular issue, and that he has studied it carefully. He also indicated to me and to members of my caucus that he will

continue to listen on the subject. That is obviously witnessed by the fact that he is present for the debate today.

In 1991 by a unique set of circumstances I made the acquaintance of a young professional couple who was fleeing an extremely oppressive situation in a north African country. I will talk a bit about them and about my indirect personal experience with this terrible subject matter.

These people were secular Muslims. They were persecuted by a fundamentalist regime for expressing their more moderate views and for associating with persons who shared those moderate views. I am straining here not to invade their privacy and I am of necessity therefore being vague about details of their professions, nationalities and other identifying features.

In any event, I am happy to say the Canadian immigration system worked. It delivered for this couple. They became refugees and then immigrants. Now they are citizens living and working in the freedom of our great country. They became friends of our family and particular friends of my daughter who is the same age as the young woman.

Shortly after achieving refugee status they came to see me. The woman needed to consult a doctor because she wanted to have children and she needed advice. She had been the victim at the age of 12 of female genital mutilation. Her clitoris had been crudely removed, her labia minora excised and her labia majora incised to create raw surfaces so they could be stitched together forming a cover of skin and scar over the vagina. There is in this type of mutilation a small opening left to allow for urination, for menstruation and for the pleasure of the man who would ultimately become her husband.

Like most Canadians I had never been confronted with it before although I knew about it. We were able to find a surgeon who was of assistance and who performed a procedure that gave some relief and ultimately allowed my friend to more comfortably perform bodily functions and happily to bear two gorgeous children who are Canadian citizens. One of them was a Canadian before her parents were.

I was struck then and I remain struck now by the image of this beautiful young woman, the same age as my daughter, intelligent, alive, youthful and because of our system politically free.

Even with what we have done for her we can never put things back the way they should be. She can never, ever enjoy sexual relations with her husband. She bears scars and will suffer physical side effects for the rest of her life. She will have pain both physical and spiritual that we can only imagine. She will bear this pain stoically, with dignity, and thankfully with the support of her husband. She bears the terrible memory of the mutilation act, of the midwife with a razor, of no anesthesia, of her mother and others holding her down, of the blood, the pain, the fear, the convalescence, and to what end? The end to be served was that of her own oppression.

They mutilate women, damage them. In this rite women are treated like chattel, like livestock. They exist to be used for labour, to bear sons and for sexual gratification that they cannot share. They mutilate them so they will be faithful, so they will not enjoy sex, so they will not run away, so someone else will not take them. It is done in the name of manhood, in the name of God or religion, in the name of the preservation of a way of life and in the name of a culture; but nothing comparable is done in these cultures to men.

I believe passionately in the diversity of this country; in the right of Canadians and of people who come here to display their religions, their cultures and their ethnic origins; in the equality of the sexes; and in respect for religious and cultural practices of others.

I believe religious headgear like the keppah, the turban and the Muslim veil should be accepted by Canadians in our everyday life. I believe we should be colour blind in our policies. I believe in employment equity.

As much as I believe in all these things, I also believe that practices like female genital mutilation cannot and must not be tolerated in Canada. Throughout the world between 85 million and 115 million girls and women have suffered this tragedy. Its defenders say, quite incredibly to me, that it is a right of passage like ear piercing or the male right of circumcision. The mutilation of female genitalia cannot be compared to these other minor procedures. It has no purpose but to suppress.

I do not want to impose my views unilaterally on foreign lands or cultures, but I believe that we can and must come to grips with this practice within our own borders.

I know and I accept the assurances of legal experts that female genital mutilation is covered by the more general sections of the Criminal Code concerning assault. However, as a woman, as a mother, as a sister, as a daughter and as a citizen of the global village, I do not think that is good enough.

I urge the government and all members of the House to take the extra step to help to educate others, to help to educate across the world and to educate within our borders so that people understand that if they participate in the act of female genital mutilation we believe it is wrong. If it takes an amendment to the Criminal Code in the final analysis after we have studied it, after it has perhaps gone to committee and after we have looked at all factors, I will rise in the House and support it.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is with respect that I rise to speak to Bill C-277 presented by my colleague for Quebec.

I will read the bill as she has presented it to bring the impact once again of the horrible mutilation to the public view. The amendment will include:

A person who

(a) excises or otherwise mutilates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a female person; or

(b) aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance by another person of any of the acts described in paragraph (a),

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

In 1992 the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons expressed concern over a rise in the number of requests for infibulations, which is the cutting off a young girl's genital parts including the clitoris and the subsequent sewing together of the opening leaving room for only urination and menstruation. We are addressing the issue today because the increase is reason for concern.

Canada has been cited by the World Health Organization as being one of 40 countries involved in the practice of what has euphemistically become known as female circumcision but is more correctly referred to as female genital mutilation or FGM.

FGM causes any number of both short and long term problems including excruciating pain; hemorrhaging; occasional death; exceptionally high rates of infections to the urinary tract, bladder, reproductive organs and bowel; menstrual and pregnancy problems; anaemia and disfiguring cysts which not only reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure but often result in extreme pain during intercourse and can even prohibit it.

Unlike male circumcision there is no dispute within the medical community as to the benefits versus the harm of female genital mutilation. The medical community judges FGM to have no benefits and is harmful in many ways with both the short and long term implications already cited.

Charles Kyazze, head of Ottawa's African Resource Centre, believes that FGM is being performed primarily by members of African communities where it is accepted and perpetuated as a legitimate cultural practice. It is also being performed in hospitals by doctors who argue that if they were not performing the procedure in a controlled environment, the child would be exposed to a much higher risk of infection and would suffer much more pain during and after the procedure. In some cases, Kyazze says, families are sending their children to Africa for the procedure.

That Canada has been recognized as a state in which this procedure is practised, in private homes as well as in hospitals, validates our argument to codify female genital mutilation in Canadian legislation.

Christine Hodges cited recently in the Globe and Mail the story of a Chadean woman who, reluctant to have her daughter suffer the procedure and despite pressures from her mother and grandmother to have it done, had decided not to have the procedure performed on her children. However, because her daughters became so distraught and unhappy at being singled out as different because they were the only women in their cultural community not to be so altered, she agreed.

She chose the least mutilating of the procedures which would not carry with it the high risk of infection and would not result in the inability to have normal pleasurable intercourse. Despite her western ideas about the procedure, she recognized that her daughters had to live in this cultural context, remaining supported by the community and sharing many of the same beliefs. As appalled as Ms. Hodges was at the idea and action of FGM, she had a better understanding of the motivation behind it as it was presented within the context of the community in which it was practised.

The point of this story is not that culture and ideas of what is right and wrong are relative but that within their own context cultural practices can be understood, tolerated and at times respected and admired. We certainly have no power as a nation to impose our own ideas and beliefs on other nations. We may voice our displeasure, concern or even contempt but we cannot expect another nation to abide by our laws and practices on their own soil any more than someone coming from another nation should expect to impose their laws and practices on Canadian soil.

When a cultural action is taken from its original context and placed in our own, it is therefore our obligation to examine it and rightly judge whether it conforms to Canadian social and cultural norms.

I may not wish to judge FGM as an action that is inappropriate in Africa, but I do condemn it as an action that is inappropriate within the context of Canadian culture. With that in mind I would like to pose the following questions with regard to not only this particular bill but how we address and judge the cultural practices of residents and citizens coming from countries with sometimes different and even conflicting beliefs and ideas.

Where do we draw the line on how much of each culture we are willing to promote? What criteria do we use to judge the appropriateness of an action of an ethnic group? If we are not able to use our own cultural and state criteria then how do we justify prosecuting some men who claim that physical abuse of their wives is a cultural thing? It is one thing to allow people to promote their own cultures, but at what cost? Do we compromise what we as Canadians hold to be worth preserving and maintaining in the name of cultural diversity and cultural tolerance?

Canadian laws and values should not be so cheap that we are willing to make compromises for the sake of not offending the sensibilities of others. That should not simply be with regard to female genital mutilation but with regard to any cultural practice that contradicts Canadian laws as well as social and civil practices.

In answer to the above questions I suggest the following: that the only criteria which we as Canadians can use with regard to the judgment of an act are the common beliefs and laws of our land. If this were not the case we should be willing to tolerate all cultural practices from FGM to the cutting off of someone's hand when he or she is caught stealing or the physical abuse of women and children because it is culturally accepted elsewhere.

One might wish to argue at this point that clearly the above acts are either directly or indirectly in violation of our laws and cannot be permissible; therefore, the point is moot. I would suggest, however, that it is inconsistent to fund and encourage some cultural practices while criminalizing others. What we are saying to new Canadians is: "We encourage you to continue to live according to the standards and beliefs of your country of origin, but only those that we find palatable".

A Somali family may wish to have its daughter's genitalia removed because in its culture such a practice meets religious standards or preserves a sense of identity to their community or it is believed to help maintain cleanliness and health or it is believed to preserve virginity and family honour and prevent immorality.

As Canadians do we support such views? I suggest we do not. If we continue to advance the current multicultural policies that we do, we are facilitating a platform from which practices such as FGM can be justified.

I am not trying to imply that we prevent people from promoting their culture of origin privately. It is important in life to have continuity, to know where you are from and who and what has been instrumental in shaping the person that you are and will become.

By making the promotion of foreign cultures a matter of public policy, we are essentially saying that although we have values that are Canadian they do not need to be embraced by those immigrating to Canada as they already have cultural and moral framework that we encourage they uphold.

I wish to applaud the hon. member for coming forward with the proposed bill. I applaud her not only for what the bill means for the women who are subject to what I believe to be an inhuman act but also for the implicit statement it makes about Canada's values and beliefs.

As Canadians we must be clear in our condemnation of a practice that is so mutilating. We cannot continue to stand by as the international community perceives us as a nation which tolerates such abuse.

Finally, the Reform Party suggests that the current bill as proposed does not go far enough in its condemnation of the act. We recommend amending the bill at committee in the following manner, that Bill C-277 become an addition to section 267, rather than of section 244, of the Criminal Code. The bill would then read:

Bill C-277 is amended by adding the following after section 267:

267.1 A person who

(a) excises or otherwise mutilates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a female person; or

(b) aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance by another person of any of the acts described in paragraph (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

The hon. member put forward five years. As it stands the bill will codify the act of female genital mutilation as an offence carrying a lesser charge that it might currently carry not codified. Presently a person performing the procedure in Canada could be charged under sections 267 or 268, assault causing bodily harm, but there is no codification.

I thank my hon. colleague from Quebec for having brought forward this most important piece of legislation.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

The perpetuation of the practice of female genital mutilation, while it may be confined to certain communities, has serious implications for all Canadians. Ultimately this is an issue of human rights. As such it concerns us all and we all share the responsibility for putting a stop to it.

When I came to Parliament Hill a year and a half ago I would never have foreseen myself speaking to such an issue. Today I stand here with my blinders removed, having been made to understand in some measure the brutality of this procedure and the devastating physical and emotional impact on the victims. I have risen in the Chamber to speak out on this issue before, as I did in Copenhagen at the interparliamentary union last fall.

It is imperative that we take the strongest possible stand opposing violence in all forms against women, both in Canada and around the world. Female circumcision, as it is so euphemistically called, is the manifestation of an oppressive patriarchal philosophy. It physically mutilates girls and young women, destroying their capacity in the future to enjoy normal sexual relations in order to ensure that they reach a marriageable age in the state of virginity.

It is estimated that 80 million women around the world, 600 every day, undergo this torment, often in the most primitive and barbaric circumstances, frequently without anaesthesia or properly sterilized equipment. The pain and the loss of blood may lead to shock, permanent injury, both physical and physiological and in some cases to death.

The physical manifestations, although seldom reported to authorities, are still well known. Less is known about the psychological and emotional effects of the operation.

This practice is not restricted to the third world. It is today an increasing concern for Canadians. For example, between 1986 and 1991, 40,000 people immigrated to Canada from northern and eastern Africa. In these areas the practice is routine enough that it is naive to think it has not been imported. It is naive and is in fact dangerous to ignore.

At the same time the argument has been made that we have no business imposing our cultural values on Canadian communities, especially Canadian ethnic communities. Canada is a society premised on the foundation of tolerance. Culture cannot and must never be used as an excuse to perpetuate criminal acts and violate human rights.

As a multicultural society, we must balance our respect for cultural variation with protection of the rights of children, women, indeed all humanity. Female genital mutilation is a cultural practice, nothing more. It is not and has never been sanctioned by any religion. Let us be emphatic on this point when we say that no religion sanctions such practice. As great as our concern for cultural freedom, greater is our concern for the lives of our young immigrant and refugee women.

The very fact of this debate indicates clearly the development of our understanding and our concern about this important issue. Our legal structures are evolving to accommodate the changing needs of Canadians. For example, I note the gender related persecution provision used by Canada in its refugee determination process. Members will recall the new guidelines being applied to a woman whose daughter faced potential ritual genital mutilation in their homeland. Canada in that case granted them refuge.

At the same time, it is critical that in addressing this problem we must target our legislative response to bring about the most effective prevention. We must move with care in order to prevent the practice from moving still further underground and we must be sensitive to the communities involved.

I commend the member for her intentions and for her work in bringing this bill forward. I fully recognize the critical importance of the principle. However, at this point, I also want to bring out the reservations that I have about the bill, not the issue.

The bill essentially proposes to amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence of genital mutilation, punishable on indictment, and carrying a term of up to five years' imprisonment. Compare this to the existing code provisions which contain, among the various assault provisions, the offence of aggravated assault which applies to everyone who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of another person and carries a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment.

Moreover, section 21 of the code makes it clear that any party who aids or abets in the commission of an offence is guilty of the offence. As well, it is an offence under the code to remove a child from Canada who is ordinarily resident in order to commit any of the listed assault offences. Any person performing such an operation is also liable to prosecution.

Certainly then the existing code already covers these offences. Let us make no mistake, the Criminal Code when properly applied can be a formidable tool in this battle.

Bill C-277 is not tough enough. If the police were to charge under the specific offence, such as is stated in this bill, they would not be entitled to the stiffer penalty that we have now in the code.

I am concerned about driving the practice still further underground. This practice is very well entrenched and hidden and we must ensure that it does not slip entirely from view. I have been advised that there has not been a single prosecution in Canada of this practice. Is this just because it does not go on? I do not think so. We are not catching it.

Why are we not catching it? It is a brutal practice and it has been entrenched by the passage of time. In some communities the practice has great social prestige, marking the girl's transition to womanhood. Believe it or not, many girls look forward to this procedure with excitement and terror. They have been coerced by social pressures, the desire to please parents and communities or the fear of not finding a husband, into undergoing this brutal torment.

It will come as no surprise that even in those areas of the world where the practice is common, there are still women working against it. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women notes in its brief on the subject:

Women from various African countries now living in Canada who had the operation as children remember sheer agony. They speak bitterly of how they were held down by several women despite their resistance. They strongly agree that they will not circumcise their daughters, would never inflict such pain upon them.

As the document notes:

-there tends to be agreement that young girls put pressure on mothers to do it.

As long as such social pressures continue to exist, the Criminal Code is of limited value in this fight. I understand the argument that a specific provision of the code would draw greater public attention to the offence, but we must recognize that education is the best tool to make Canadians understand the barbarity of this custom.

To recap, the existing Criminal Code provisions are adequate in so far as the problem can be addressed through the code. A progressive and an aggressive campaign of public information is crucial.

The attorney general in Ontario has a task force on female genital mutilation. We have to study the recommendations and at this point I look forward and will not rule out having a specific Criminal Code offence on this issue.

I am very grateful to the member for allowing me to add my voice with women and men in this country and around the world and say this is a barbaric practice that has to be stopped. I am very glad we have people willing to stand up and talk very openly about these issues which have been for too long left undebated.

I really appreciate being able to stand in a public forum like this to discuss something so normally sensitive an issue and say with conviction this is an issue that violates our human rights. I am proud Canada is speaking out about this. I put my support behind whatever tools are out there to eradicate this offence.

I will give very hard thought to how I will vote on this issue because I have not yet made up my mind as to whether I will vote in support of the existing Criminal Code amendments. I know they are useful. I have concerns about limiting the length of time and I wish the members opposite to know those concerns.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to commend the hon. member for Québec for putting forward this bill and convincing the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to make it a votable item. This issue speaks to our fundamental values. I also wish to thank the hon. member for providing me with extensive documentation on the subject.

This issue concerns me as a citizen and a parliamentarian, of course, but also as the father of a 16-year old daughter. I shudder at the thought that, had she been born in a different country, in a different culture, she could have been subjected to the same treatment.

It is surprising and even astounding that the Canadian Criminal Code criminalizes cockfights but contains no specific provisions against female genital mutilation, because it is indeed a form of mutilation. We should not fool ourselves or try to hide behind euphemisms. Female circumcision is simply a euphemism designed to take the edge off a cruel reality. There is no comparison between male circumcision, which can even be a religious rite in some regards, and female genital mutilation. We talked earlier about the full or partial excision of the clitoris. We talked about infibulation, in which healthy organs are mutilated on purpose.

There is something absolutely outrageous about this procedure, and I was surprised to hear my colleague, the hon. member for London West, say earlier that the current provisions of the Criminal Code may be adequate, since they cover bodily harm and assaults causing bodily harm. The problem is that these provisions have been in the Criminal Code for a long time. They have been there for so long that people from other cultures who come to Canada and engage in female genital mutilation do not feel at all that they are guilty of causing bodily harm or of assault causing bodily harm.

These people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are acting in accordance with their culture. The time has come to send them a clear message. We certainly have no mandate to become cultural imperialists, but we can say: "From the moment you cross the Canadian border, here is what the Parliament of Canada has to say. As long as you are on Canadian territory, you must adopt the following value, which we have adopted as our own-if you mutilate the genital organs of a woman, you are guilty of an indictable offence". I will come back later to the penalty which could be imposed.

This is the message that we should first and above all send, a clear, cultural message that, although we accept certain multicultural values, and many are acceptable, we have to draw the line somewhere, and we draw it here. We must say: We do not want any of this going on in our country. All the better if others follow our example and take the same legislative approach as we have. But we must send the message loud and clear that we have zero tolerance when it comes to the mutilation of female genital organs. We must make sure that everybody gets the message, because we are not only targeting people from other cultures; we are also targeting people on the inside, people who are culturally already Canadians and who, for one reason or another, are looking for excuses for shirking their responsibilities.

The criminalization of genital mutilation of female persons would involve the application of section 21 of the Criminal Code under which everyone is party to an offence who actually commits it, which includes conspiring to commit the offence, being an accessory and attempting to commit the offence. This

would cover far more people, in fact all those who willingly observe the so-called omerta, the law of silence, which is unacceptable in this context, and they will realize that as soon as Bill C-277 is passed. They ought to know that now, and in fact they do. There is an element of wishful blindness on the part of members of the medical profession who agree to engage in the genital mutilation of female persons because they say that if it is done by lay people there would be a risk of infection.

This does not make sense. It is like people who say that at least if we do the excision or infibulation, it is under anaesthetic. There is something very wrong with that type of reasoning. Whether it hurts or not is not the point. The point is whether we are prepared to tolerate such a brutal, I would even say bestial act.

The hon. member for Québec said earlier that 6,000 young girls or young women undergo this horrifying operation every day. I saw it on television once. It was very painful to watch, and it turned my stomach to see a girl of ten or not even that, tied up with a piece of wood in her mouth to keep her from screaming or to stifle her screams. It was awful. These images were horrible. And I think no Canadian who would see this violation of the integrity of the human body could remain unmoved.

I have no problem supporting the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Québec, for the reasons I just mentioned. We must put an end to this because, by tolerating or claiming to tolerate genital mutilation, we are merely giving further credit to a status that for a long time was and in some respects still is the lot of women in Canada and in the western world, to be a second class person.

Remember that female suffrage in Canada only came after the First World War. The first woman to sit in this House, Agnes Macphail, was elected in 1921. For a long time, members of the female sex were considered mere subordinates. It has not always been easy. It is still not easy in this country to take one's womanhood and assert it right to the top.

The reason you are in the chair today is not because you were given the position, but because you and your parents and your grandparents fought to put you there. What a vibrant symbol to have a woman in the chair. We could set an example in various ways, but the point should be made in another respect that, in terms of the status of women, major changes are still required in areas where this still applies.

Equal treatment for women, obviously not only equal under the law-we already have this pretty well everywhere now-, but equal in fact. Equal in fact means having people understand, from the earliest age, that men and women are born, live and die equally-not only in law but in fact. When we accept these principles, we will then be able to advance the status of women in Canada.

One comment on the proposal by my colleague for Québec: the punishment for the offence she proposes to make of the mutilation of genital organs is, in my opinion, not nearly severe enough.

Since a charge of assault causing bodily harm can result in a maximum term of 14 years' imprisonment, I will suggest in committee, because I am sure the House will refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, that the maximum sentence be at least 14 years as well.

The maximum sentence must be the sentence given the worst criminal in the worst situation. In the case of a repeat offence or multiple offences, the five year sentence seems inadequate. This can easily be done in committee. On the principle of the matter, I will support Bill C-277 when the vote is taken.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lend by support to the private members' bill of my colleague for Quebec. The issue is extremely important and deserves the attention of all of us in the House.

During the recent hearings by the standing committee on citizenship and immigration we discussed and heard evidence on gender based immigration. Canada was the first country to recognize gender based persecution, and women who fear genital mutilation have been granted refugee status. Experts say over 100 million women have been subjected to genital mutilation-what horror.

In Montreal, the Human Rights Commission is threatening legal action against anyone performing such an abomination on young girls. The mutilation is practised on young girls for religious and cultural reasons.

We know how difficult it is to change traditions and customs, but we can at least forbid such violent acts in Canada, thus protecting naive young girls who do not have access to other cultures and traditions. The amendment to the Criminal Code will ensure that such a practice is neither accepted nor justified in our society.

The procedure is carried out by a woman who does not even need to have the necessary expertise or instruments to operate on the young girls.

Even though we cannot intervene in other countries, we must make sure that such tragedies do not occur in Canada where multiculturalism protects us, but does not condone practices which are contrary to human rights or criminal in nature.

Multiculturalists can help with educating Canadians on this and other issues. Nowadays new surgical techniques are being developed to undo the damage so that women who were subjected to infibulation can have children without having to suffer excruciating pain and can have almost the same type of life an

adult woman is entitled to. This is only a way to cure and we need to be proactive.

We are learning more and more about genital mutilation. We are also learning that in some countries it is inflicted on all young girls. It is known that after an extremely painful operation conducted without anaesthetics or proper surgical tools the young girls will never be able to enjoy a full life as an adult and they often die.

Because of the facts I just mentioned and for many other reasons mentioned by my colleagues, I will support Bill C-277 regarding the genital mutilation of female persons. I also want to thank the member for Québec for bringing this piece of legislation forward.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, on May 11 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs what was being done to assure the extension of the non-proliferation treaty, which was then being negotiated in New York City. In particular, I asked what was being done to oblige the nuclear weapon states to respect article VI of the treaty.

According to article VI, the nuclear weapon states are obliged to reduce their nuclear weapons. That was part of the non-proliferation treaty bargain. The non-nuclear weapon states agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, while the nuclear weapon states committed themselves to reducing their nuclear arsenals.

What happened? Since the treaty was implemented in 1970 the non-nuclear weapon states, Canada included, developed or acquired no nuclear weapons. In other words, the non-nuclear weapon states totally respected the treaty. On the other hand, the three nuclear weapon states, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, ignored their obligations under article VI.

In 1970, when the treaty was brought into force, the United States and the Soviet Union had 8,000 nuclear weapons. By 1990 they had 50,000 nuclear weapons. Not only did they not reduce their nuclear weapons, they increased them in a spectacular way.

Since the treaty was limited to 25 years, until March of this year, was necessary to renegotiate its continuation, and that is what was being done this spring in New York. However, one of the major problems with many of the countries that were brought to reconsider the treaty was the failure of the nuclear weapon states to live up to their obligations under article VI. Many non-nuclear weapon states asked why they should support the extension of a treaty that was not respected by the nuclear weapon states.

That was the question I put to the minister on May 11. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary did not answer that part of the question. He told me, and I was extremely pleased, that on that very day there had been an agreement to extend the non-proliferation treaty for an indefinite period of time. He did not, however, mention the conditions. He did not say what was being done to oblige the nuclear weapon states to reduce their nuclear weapons in accordance with article VI.

I have since learned that review conferences will continue to be held every five years to promote full implementation of the treaty and that there was a commitment to approve the comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996 as well as the establishment of certain nuclear free zones.

Once again ask the parliamentary secretary what measures are being taken to assure that the nuclear weapon states will comply with article VI of the NPT. Also, what is being done to assure universal adherence to this important treaty?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is to be congratulated for his work nationally and with international organizations in bringing about security and stability to this planet.

A few weeks ago the 176 member nations of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, or the NPT, together took a historic decision to extend the life of this key international treaty indefinitely, which is unquestionably the most important international arms control agreement in existence.

The indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT was a key Canadian objective. This treaty is vitally important to Canada for three essential reasons. First, the NPT establishes a barrier to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is the treaty's most fundamental purpose and its most outstanding success. Canada and the world are more secure as a result.

Second, the treaty commits all states to work toward disarmament, including nuclear disarmament. Our long term goal is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Third, the treaty provides the framework for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy by establishing a system of effective international safeguards. Our exports of nuclear technology under safeguard agreements have helped to sustain an industry that employs 20,000 Canadians directly and 10,000 Canadians indirectly.

Canada played a leading role at the NPT review and extension conference by marshalling the support of over 100 countries from all regions of the world for a resolution to indefinitely extend the treaty.

With the continued existence of the NPT no longer in question we have laid down the basis for long term security and stability, the essential elements necessary for further reductions in global nuclear inventories.

We have now turned the corner. The cold war is over and we are on the road to a world with fewer and fewer nuclear weapons. We have a long way to go, but we are on the right track. Without the NPT the world would be a much more dangerous place and Canadians would be much less secure.

We can be justly proud of the key role Canada played in securing the benefits of the NPT now and for future generations to come.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on may 11, I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about the enormous number of rejected applications for landing made by immigrants and refugees unable to pay the $975 immigration tax at the Mississauga claims processing office alone.

The minister denied the figures published in the media but recognized that 3,800 applications were returned because the required fee was not attached and that 400 loan applications were made. He failed to say however how many of these applications were rejected.

In fact, both the minister and his officials refuse to see how serious the situation really is. His department has refused to provide us with accurate information. In the coming weeks or months, the minister will no doubt realize and be forced to admit that this problem is taking disastrous proportions.

The only figures available so far are for Mississauga. But what about the Végréville centre, the largest claims processing office in the country? The fact is that only 38 per cent of all loan applications are accepted. Rejections are motivated for the most part by the fact that processing officers believe that claimants are not solvent.

A few weeks ago, I visited a number of agencies that provide assistance to immigrants in the Montreal area. Among them were the Bordeaux-Cartierville support centre for immigrant communities, which is located in your riding, Madam Speaker, and the Service d'aide aux réfugiés et aux immigrants du Montréal métropolitain, or SARIMM. The people I met there told me they had seen people desperately looking for money in order to pay this tax. Some abandon the idea of having their spouse or children join them in Canada because they cannot pay. How can the minister ignore this reality?

Immigrants contribute more to the public treasury than citizens born in Canada, says Professor Ather Akbari, from St. Mary's University in Halifax, who recently testified before the immigration committee. His studies show that in 1990 immigrant families paid on average $22,528 in taxes while they received only $10,558 worth of public services.

Why should immigrants have to pay a tax even before they land here, on top of the $500 fee required to have their record processed? In most cases, this is cruel, immoral, unfair, and discriminatory.

Many recognized refugees cannot get permanent residence in Canada because they cannot afford to pay the tax. What is their status, then? Nobody seems to know. In the meantime, they are not eligible to social benefits because they are not Canadian residents. How, then, are they supposed to become part of the Canadian society?

In 1988, a new program was initiated to help female refugees, especially from countries at war. Up to 1993, Canada has admitted only 655 women under that program. One of the barriers is that many of those refugees do not have the money to pay their fare to Canada. As a matter of fact, the government has refused to lend them money because they are deemed incapable of paying that money back.

The least the minister could do is make loans available to recognized refugees when they request that kind of assistance and want to bring their family to Canada.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am greatly disappointed by the remarks made by my colleague from Bourassa. It is too bad, but what can you do?

The hon. member means well but his acquaintance with the facts is still at best nodding. The numbers that he quotes are very preliminary. The numbers in the press were not correct and even were they correct, too preliminary to create any kind of a trend.

It will take some months before we see the consistency of rate that can give us some idea of the trends. What is important, très important pour mon cher ami de Bourassa, is that since the

February budget announcement the number of requests for landing has gone up, not down.

Since the announcement 18,000 applications for landing have been processed. Of the 18,000 applications, less than 3 per cent have requested loans. Sponsors who have had their applications returned because they did not include the new fee are resubmitting applications very quickly and with the correct fee.

Any applicant who does not initially qualify for a loan may reapply at any time without penalty. In addition, as the member well knows, refugees have had permission to work since February 1994.

The important thing for the member to know is something I have said to him before. The minister has said it to him. We will say it again. No refugee will be denied protection. That is the important thing.

The other important thing for the hon. member is that he should not believe everything he reads in the papers.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Madam Speaker, in rural Canada there is a tremendous concern about agriculture employment services. These services do a great deal to make certain that agricultural communities throughout Canada can provide labour and work in those communities.

Farms very much depend on this service. Through federal government studies, we see that 55 per cent of our farm communities feel there would be a large problem within the sector if they did not have some type of agricultural employment service.

In my riding of Essex-Kent, in the Leamington office alone we have approximately 3,670 placements annually. The office expense is approximately $189,000. The cost per placement or per job for the federal government is $50. In my community it generates $4 million worth of labour earnings.

That $4 million justifies those placements dramatically and certainly cuts back on the cost of government across the board. The Chatham employment office has very similar statistics with 2,500 job placements annually.

This service is extremely important to both employees and employers. As the federal government has done studies on seasonal work it realizes that people with $15,000 incomes will draw on the federal and provincial governments in excess of $5,000 in support payments. With seasonal work, each dollar that is paid to a worker is reducing both the federal and provincial costs. This is extremely important to all in Canada.

The agricultural service provides quick placements for labour when a crop is ready to be harvested, planted or when some other service is required. People have to be readily available and placed into those jobs.

In my riding of Essex county and in Kent county it is a 12-month a year service with greenhouses operating all winter, dairy farms with crops having to be harvested through the summer, in the spring and the fall pruning and harvesting. These are very important and add diversity and part time labour all year round.

The minister's working group has cited that this is one of the most successful examples of meeting seasonal labour demands in the country in its studies. It cites that it is a very timely, important industry for the agricultural market to make our seasonal industries operate properly.

It is very clear that as CEC is in transition at this time it would be unable to pick up the slack if agricultural employment services were withdrawn. I think it is very important that the minister review this scenario and attempt to meet the rural needs.

There is absolutely no question when I look at the minister's approach that I am pleased he has decided he will set up a committee to investigate and operate within the structure and possibly reinvestigate the funding that may be possible for the agricultural employment service. It is important that we look at this for all rural communities throughout Canada and make certain our agricultural industry is successful and prosperous.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of human resources development services to rural communities across Canada.

As announced in the budget, HRDC is carrying out a thorough review and reorganization of programs and services to reduce overhead costs and find new ways of delivering services more efficiently and effectively. Every effort is being made so that services are accessible relevant to local needs and service oriented.

As the minister of HRD has previously stated, there will be more points of service in rural communities after reorganization than there currently are. Priority will be on ensuring that all clients including those in smaller communities will not have to travel for more than one-half hour to have access to basic services. The addition of 300 to 400 electronic kiosks means that HRDC will have the potential to reach 97 per cent of the working age population in all areas, including those in smaller communities.

In the context of that reform the minister is looking at developing new partnerships with the private sector, the unions and local stakeholders in the delivery of our services.

One specific area in which this approach is being pursued is the area of agricultural employment services. The minister has already announced that his department will continue to provide these services for the next year. At the same time, he has announced that AES and CECs will be involved in the development of transition plans at the local level to involve more players in the delivery of agricultural services.

Regions will work with industry partners to recommend co-operative agreements that will continue to serve employers in the agricultural industry. CEC is exploring options to handle the labour exchange function currently provided by AES. HRDC remains committed to the agricultural community and will continue to provide the best services possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.19 p.m.)