Debates of June 10th, 1996

Criminal Code

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, let me again repeat my appreciation especially to

the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby and other members of the House in allowing me to speak on the importance of the bill. I want to speak in particular to the amendments under Bill C-27 that relate to the sexual exploitation of children abroad.

Members will recall that during the throne speech we made a commitment as a government to work toward international consensus dealing with the exploitation of children in the whole area of labour, standards and rights.

One of the most tragic and vicious aspects of that whole problem is there has been a burgeoning and growing sex industry of tourism being sponsored abroad in which tourism operators and others organize various initiatives and ventures in which people will leave their home country and go to foreign countries to sexually exploit or molest young children.

This has been a matter of deep concern since we had the convention on the rights of the child. I believe about 185 countries have specifically ratified the convention, but as yet there has not been an attempt to find a full fledged international answer to the problem.

Instead what has taken place is that a number of individual countries have now taken the initiative to extend the opportunity of their own legal system where there is consent by the country involved to take legal action against residents or citizens of their own country in this kind of transgression.

I am convinced the amendments brought forward today are one of the strongest signals we can send internationally to expose the full force of the Canadian criminal law with our own citizens in order to specifically prohibit the use of children for sexual purposes.

There has been overwhelming evidence these kind of offences are growing in number. It has been documented by national revenue that Canadian citizens go abroad to take advantage of children in other countries. The Sri Lanka and Philippine governments have reported arrests of Canadian residents in relation to such offences. During foreign investigations Canadians have been identified as being members of international pedophile networks. As a result we think it is very important that Canada take some responsibility for these kinds of actions.

Passing legislation that makes sexual tourism involving children a criminal act sends a clear message that this activity is neither tolerable nor acceptable.

Canada is not alone in its efforts. In fact, the international community is united in supporting the passing of such legislation.

There are important precedents. I am thinking here of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada has ratified; I am thinking of the work started by the international community, such as that initiated by the Human Rights Commission; and, finally, I am thinking of some 10 nations that have already passed such legislation.

One of the questions that has emerged by certain critics or commentaries is can such things work. Clearly we are breaking some new ground.

Other countries such as Australia and New Zealand now have this law on the books, as does the United States and several European countries. By use of modern technologies such as video conferencing and taping it is possible to take evidence abroad and use it within our courts with minimum difficulty. What we discovered is that there already have been some prosecutions.

What is important is the deterrent effect it has, knowing there is a law on the books, a possibility to prosecute. In many countries of a developing nature there is not the same effective force of a legal system as we have providing a strong and effective message that they should not do it, they cannot do it and they will be punished if they do it. The legislation not only gives children that kind of protection but provides for a higher standard and level of activity.

Canada intends to participate actively in the conference on commercial sexual exploitation being held in Sweden at the end of the summer. This international meeting will bring together for the first time government representatives, UN agencies, police enforcement officers, academic institutions, health professionals and representatives of the tourism industry to see whether they can do this on a unilateral basis, country by country, and get the support for an international convention adopted by all countries.

We hope by having this legislation passed now when we go to the conference in Sweden we can stand up as Canadians and say we are part of a vanguard to take real issue, to take a real stand against one of the most vicious and venal kinds of exploitation, that of helpless children living in dire straits and in serious circumstances.

Once again I thank the House for its courtesy and its indulgence. I hope this gives me an opportunity to say there is a chance for Canadians to show internationally that we are prepared to take real, specific efforts to protect children right around the world.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is good to hear the minister make some rare comments on justice matters.

It is rumoured he is one of those in cabinet who stands in the way of more actively tightening the Criminal Code. I am pleased now to hear he supports some Criminal Code activism. Even when the outcome is not entirely certain, we can be bold in these kinds of matters. That is to be encouraged.

Related to the content of the bill before the House, the justice minister knows my private members' bill has been introduced. I

think he would agree that by strengthening the punishment in section 213 of the code we would strengthen the attack on the sex trade.

The minister is hesitant on the proposal. I suggest he talk to his colleague in cabinet, the Minister for International Trade. In 1989 when the minister was the mayor of Toronto he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice.

For argument's sake it would be beneficial to he read the former mayor's comments on section 213: "I support these changes as well as other recommendations our police are putting forward to help us once again regain control of our streets, namely that this offence be changed from a summary offence to a hybrid offence, requiring that those arrested be fingerprinted and photographed, which is important in dealing with runaways who can change their identities and their names and with others who are trying to avoid prosecution, and that it remain in addition to that within the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court judge".

Certainly there is consensus with the provincial attorneys general that section 213 should become a hybrid offence. If the minister is willing, I would be more than happy to withdraw my bill on the condition that such an amendment would be added to Bill C-27 at committee stage, as it directly relates to the content of the bill.

The minister and other members of the House should understand Reformers are not here to continuously oppose government legislation. Rather, we are here to offer constructive criticism and valid suggestions.

I hope the minister gives my offer some serious consideration not only for my benefit or for his but for the benefit of Canadian communities like mine, New Westminster-Burnaby, and his, Etobicoke Centre. In other words, create the right legal climate and we will see positive change emerge for safer communities.

In 1991-92 the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics completed studies in Ontario and Alberta revealing what type of sentences were handed down to those communicating for the purposes of prostitution.

In Ontario it was found that 44 per cent of charges against women, mainly prostitution charges, resulted in prison terms followed by probation at 26 per cent, fines at 22 per cent and absolute discharges at 8 per cent. Of the sentences imposed, the medium prison term was only 10 days. Of those who received fines, the medium fine amounted to a mere $150.

Alternatively in Alberta, fines were the most frequent dispositions for communicating convictions among women, who were mainly prostitutes. Sixty-six per cent of charges against women resulted in fines, followed by prison terms at 19 per cent, probation at 15 per cent and absolute discharges at 2 per cent. Of those who were imprisoned, the median prison term was just 30 days. Of those who received fines, the median fine amounted to about $200.

Any way we look at these statistics, it tells us that the penalties associated with prostitution are too weak. The sex trade flourishes. The Criminal Code needs to be strengthened. Reformers have been telling the minister this for years. It is good to see he has finally listened and is at least willing to deal with the subject in law rather than just endless study after study.

I commend the minister for the changes he made to section 212(4). The section now reads: "Every person who, in any place, obtains or attempts to obtain for consideration the sexual services of a person who is under the age of 18 years or who that person believes is under the age of 18 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years".

There is a real problem with prostitutes under the age of 18 years. The widely known Badgley committee report on sexual offences against children and youth done in 1984 discovered that approximately one-half of prostitutes interviewed entered the prostitution trade when they were under the age of 16. Further, almost 96 per cent of those interviewed said that they had become prostitutes before the age of 18.

It is the ease of entry into the trade via the street that facilitates the young to become involved. When prostitutes are asked to describe street life, all they give are negative assessments. In fact I would guarantee that if most had their lives to live over again, every one of them would not choose the sex trade lifestyle.

J. Lowman from the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University found that most prostitutes would advise a young person not to get involved in the life. Lowman found that for many street prostitutes it is the fact that prostitution provides money at all that is the necessary condition of both their turning out and their remaining in the business. If this were not the case it is difficult to see why so many prostitutes stay in the business when they offer such thoroughly negative appraisals of it. It is a trap that is a wide open entry to life on the street. It is a downward spiral where alternatives to change become very hard to find.

A local reporter in my riding did a story on prostitution a couple of years ago. While researching it he approached a prostitute and the response was: "I am under age. Don't take my picture. Put my picture in your paper and my parents will sue you". I thought that was rather interesting. Here she was performing an illegal act and she was talking about suing the reporter for wanting to take her picture for a story. I guess she knew the justice system better at 17 years of age than most people will ever begin to know it in their lifetime.

The same can be said about the Young Offenders Act. The 11-year old who repeatedly steals cars knows full well the police cannot touch him until he is 12. Like the prostitutes on the street, the young offenders know exactly what they can get away with. Capacity creates its own demand.

I want to touch on another subject in Bill C-27 and perhaps add some comments on the issue of the sex trade overseas. Clause 1 of the bill adds a new section to the Criminal Code dealing with those who obtain sexual services from minors outside of Canada. This is an abhorrent practice which must be outlawed not only in Canada but throughout the rest of the world. There are countries in the world whose laws are much more liberal or lenient than those here in Canada. It is in these countries that law breakers are finding their profits.

The preamble to this bill states: "Whereas, by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has undertaken to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, and to take measures to prevent the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices".

In Thailand with a population of 56 million, 2.8 million are said to be prostitutes. Incredible. Of those 2.8 million, over 800,000 are said to be under 16 years of age. A July 1994 report for the Good Shepherd Sisters, a Thailand drop-in centre, said that a great number of the country's five million tourists per year are travellers on organized sex tours from Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Europe and the United States. Although Canada was not included on that list, I find it hard to believe that such activity is not being orchestrated from this country as well.

According to those who have researched this entire area of the sex trade, articles on child prostitution overseas regularly appear in pedophile newspapers. One article that appeared in the newsletter of the North American Man/Boy Love Association rhapsodised about a 12-year old Asian boy who truly loved his work. The writer of the article went on to say: "Weigh the pros and cons of becoming involved yourself in sex tourism overseas. Seek and find love from American boys on a platonic, purely emotional level. For sexual satisfaction, travel once or twice yearly overseas. You might get arrested overseas for patronizing a boy prostitute. But the legal consequences of being caught patronizing a boy prostitute in a friendly place overseas will be less severe".

A pedophile was advised by friends to go to Asia where thousands of kids were there just for the picking. He attended a NAMBLA meeting and afterward confided to a member that he wanted to go to Thailand but he did not know how to set it up. He was told it was no problem, that he would be given a contact and he could arrange everything. A few weeks later he was with one of those who were there for the picking.

A convicted child molester, after his release from prison, enjoyed telling children in his neighbourhood that the boys he had hired in Thailand charged only $8 or $9. He was considering moving there, shortly before he disappeared, to take advantage of that country's "more mature cultural attitudes".

Australia, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United States all have laws now that allow prosecution of child sex tourists upon their return home. However some critics from these countries are sceptical that the law will be effective. One law professor from Australia stated:

The enactment of such legislation will be an important symbolic and polit-ical statement. However, there is real danger that, if the legislation isnot accompanied by effective enforcement measures at the national and international level, its promises could turn out to be rather hollow-.Prosecuting a sexual offence where a child has been the victim is a difficult enough task in any event; when it is further complicated by the problems of obtaining evidence in a foreign country, ensuring the willingness of witnesses to testify in that country where proceedings are conducted in a foreign language, that task becomes even more onerous. Furthermore, the reasons for the lack of effective enforcement of local laws in certain countries may also result in a lack of the close law enforcement co-operation needed to put together a case of this sort.

This statement has a great deal of weight and attention should be paid to it.

The section of Bill C-27 dealing with child sex tourism sounds good but the bill itself does not outline how the government is going to enforce it. Perhaps someone from the government side will be able to explain this further in today's ensuing debate. I look forward to hearing their reasoning. It is the Canadian government's duty to make certain that it does not only follow through on international agreements but that it also be a leader by its actions. As we all know, it is actions and not words that put a stop to crime.

Bill C-27 is a helpful bill but it is not a great bill. A great bill would have made changes to section 213 of the Criminal Code. However, the minister is well aware of my private member's bill, Bill C-248. I believe he realizes that to properly curb prostitution this section needs to be amended. He knows that changes to section 213 would assist the police, allowing fingerprinting and easier search access to take place.

This bill could have repealed section 745 or any number of other things.

In summary, the bill has more to do with optics rather than substance. It is not just the justice minister and his Liberal philosophy which fall short; it is his cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister who failed to give the justice minister the latitude he needs to bring in appropriate adjustments to the Criminal Code. The government's failure to legislate on criminal justice matters

has to do with an old style attitude of being a system defender rather than a system changer.

Canadians in general have little confidence or praise for the results which come from our criminal courts. Since it is largely a Liberal system, Canadians can understand why this government will never be known as the law and order group or the government that has the courage to govern on behalf of ordinary Canadians and provide safer streets.

The bill before the House today does so little when so much needs to be done. I call on the minister to quickly and comprehensively deal with the subjects that are only lightly touched upon in this bill.

I will be supporting Bill C-27. I hope my hon. friends across the floor will also be considerate when Reformers submit amendments to make this bill a better bill and more reflective of mainstream Canadian values.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate. First, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Québec, for giving me the chance to speak on the matter, since she put forward her own motions and private member's bills on this issue in 1994 and 1995.

I commend her and pay tribute to her because it is thanks to her work and interventions that the government was sensitized to this subject and finally decided to act by introducing Bill C-27 we have before us today.

So, as the hon. member for Québec mentioned, the official opposition will support this bill because it is a step in the right direction, although amendments should be passed not only to improve its content, but also to ensure its objectives can be reached be more efficiently.

I want to take a few minutes to deal with the sex tourism aspect of this bill. Obviously, when we think of sex tourism, we immediately think of the moral issue. Personally, I find it unacceptable that adults-mostly men, but I am told that some women are also into this practice-go to foreign countries where the economic situation is always extremely bad and take advantage of it-as I will demonstrate in my intervention-to sexually abuse children aged 10 or even younger sometimes. Again, these are boys as well as girls.

This practice is obviously unacceptable. We must strongly denounce it without beating about the bush. Adults seeking such services must know that Canadians, and Quebecers of course, as well as their representatives do not condone those activities, and this is why, I am sure of it, a vast majority of the members of the House will support this bill.

But beyond the moral issue, there is also an issue of economic rights. We must ask the following question: How is it that in these countries where child sex tourism is practised, the common characteristic is the extreme poverty of the people? Asian and African countries as well as South American and Central American countries and Indonesia all have in common an unacceptable, terrible economic situation where people live naturally under inhuman conditions. I will come back to this in order to link this situation to the bill before us and to measures the government should take in this regard.

I would also like to raise the following issues.

On the subject of sex tourism, I would like to explain what is meant by that, to say who practices that kind of tourism, why it exists and how, finally, we can put an end to it. Bill C-27 gives an answer to the last question by making sure Canadian residents and Canadian citizens will run the risk, with the passing of this bill, of being prosecuted for having taken part in sex tourism activities outside Canada.

I know that the critic for the Bloc Quebecois will propose amendments to make sure that the bill will apply to every person in Canada because, according to the analysis that we, the official opposition, make of it, some categories of citizens could escape the application of the act. It could be the case of political refugees and citizens awaiting permanent resident status or Canadian citizenship. So, my colleague will move amendments.

But let us go back to my first question: What is sexual tourism? As I already said, it is the practice consisting in going out of Canada-of course, it could also be inside Canada-to sexually abuse boys and girls who are generally under the age of 10. I have been told about children aged 6, 7 or 8, which is totally unacceptable according to the moral code we have in Canada, and also according to our Criminal Code.

Who practices sexual tourism? I would say that no particular category of people can be excluded automatically. However, we can easily identify two categories of sexual tourists. First, there are men in general. I am convinced that if data were available or if we could make a precise study of people who practice sexual tourism, we would discover that the great majority are men. I do not challenge this in the least, but it would also seem that there are also a few women.

There is another category of people that is singled out: the paedophiles. When we hear about paedophilia, we have a tendency to associate it with homosexuality. We saw it during the debate on Bill C-33; several members, particularly Reform members and a number of Liberal members, made this connection without any restraint to serve their political cause. Yet we know full well, and I think it is particularly true in the case of sex tourism, that the victims are, once again, mostly young girls.

All the reports I have personally seen on television, heard on the radio or read in newspapers or trade journals lead to the conclusion that the victims are mostly girls.

It does not matter whether the victim of child sexual abuse happens to be a boy or a girl, it is totally unacceptable in both cases. However, I wanted to make this distinction since it is easy, specially for some of our colleagues, to make this connection and to lead the public to believe that pedophilia is practised only by homosexuals when it is absolutely not the case.

Why does sex tourism exist? It is, I think, the basic question we have to ask ourselves. First, I will look at it from the perspective of the client. It has been mentioned that people who practice that kind of tourism in other countries do it knowing full well that our laws prohibit such activities here, in Canada. The Criminal Code is very clear on that. People who do it outside Canada are perfectly aware that it is against our laws and that it is contrary to the moral standards adhered to in Canada. This is also true in most European countries.

They do it because many of these people consider that, since they are in a country where the culture is different from ours, the moral standards are more liberal. I think of a Radio-Canada television report we saw a few weeks ago precisely on sex tourism.

In that report, a French national was interviewed by a reporter who asked him: "Why are you, a French citizen, fully aware of the fact that you could not do in your country what you are doing here"-they were in Dominican Republic-"taking advantage of young girls of 16, 15, 14 years of age and sometimes even younger?" He gave a direct and very blunt answer, saying: "Yes, I am perfectly aware that I could not do the same thing in my country, but here, usage and customs are different and we can do this sort of thing".

It is awful to see people who, I am sure, are intelligent, who are perfectly aware of the moral code and who would deem unacceptable such practices for themselves or their fellow citizens in their own country, thinking that this is acceptable when they are in Dominican Republic simply because they are abroad, and have concluded that customs, usage and attitudes are different.

If I presented the case of a French citizen, it was not to chastize our friends in France, but because it was a French national who was interviewed in the report I am referring to. He could have been from Canada, Germany or anywhere else in the world. It is completely unacceptable.

I truly believe that, before he leaves our country, such a bill will send the client a clear message to the effect that such practices are intolerable both in our country and throughout the world. We will not accept that, anywhere in the world, children be used for purposes of child sex tourism or the sex trade.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that another problem needs to be identified. Even if this bill were to be passed and even if, overnight, we started to prosecute individuals who engage in this sort of activity, I am convinced that the problem will not automatically be resolved. It will be only partially solved. This bill will allow prosecution of individuals, to set an example and to send a message, as I said earlier, to the public, so that individuals will think twice before engaging in this sort of activity, and prosecution of organizations as well.

When one talks about procurers, one refers to individuals whose commercial activities involve promoting, directing customers to countries where child sex tourism is possible. These people will be prosecuted. We shall be certainly effective to a degree, but the problem will be far from resolved. If in some countries, children are sexually abused, it is not a matter of customs or morals, it is essentially and basically for economic reasons.

I can give examples. In La Presse , this morning, there was an article which mentioned that 73 million children in the world work. I am not saying that 73 million children are sexually abused, but that 73 million children are victims of what comes close to forced labour, slavery. Many of these children are, of course, forced to submit to sexual acts. Most of the countries where children work and where there is sexual tourism are located in Africa, Asia and Latin America. For example, if you compare Burkina Faso, where 51 per cent of children work, to Italy, since it is on our list, where 0.3 per cent of children aged 10 to 14 work, you can see there is a significant difference.

The point is that even if we do adopt this bill, with which I agree wholeheartedly and which I will support, the Canadian government must realize that to solve the problem, we will have to help these populations and their governments, whenever possible, to improve their financial situation. These children could be our own, they are not even 14 or 15 yet, not even 10 in some cases, and more often than not they are homeless, with no one to turn to for help, and they have no choice but to do anything they can to survive and eat. This is the type of situation where children become slaves, work in shops for almost no salary at all and find themselves on the streets where they are easy prey for sexual tourists.

This is what I had to say. I say yes, we must adopt this bill, but we must also take other measures.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on what my Bloc colleague just said regarding the whole problem of sexual tourism,

which is one of the aspects Bill C-27 deals with. I know he is quite sensitive, given his responsibilities on the Standing Committee on Human Rights.

We are going to vote in favour of this bill; and I see that my colleague agrees that it should be amended. I concur with him-I said it this morning already, but I would like to say it again-the categories of people liable to be prosecuted should be broadened to include all those contributing to the transportation of tourists, such as travel agencies promoting this kind of tourism.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, even if we have a piece of legislation here, we must also discourage agencies from promoting sexual tourism abroad; they are a real plague.

We were given a vivid picture of the social status and living conditions of these young children. They are cheated of their childhood, of their youth, on the pretext-I have heard this often-of contributing to the economy in developing countries. I believe there are others ways to go about it.

Passing this bill is a step in the right direction, and I really appreciate it, but I would like the minister to consider certain amendments to give it more teeth. As I said before, this part of Bill C-27 deals with sexual tourism.

I thank my colleague for speaking on this subject today, given that he sits on the Standing Committee on Human Rights which include the rights of children and their physical integrity. The Bloc Quebecois is deeply committed to protecting these rights, and it does so daily.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Quebec was absolutely right to say that, as my party's human rights critic, I had to intervene in this debate. I would like to add a few points to her comments.

The human rights standing committee has been discussing and is still discussing the issue of human rights outside Canada. Canada being a country with a good international reputation, we have the responsibility to also give a clear message about human rights around the world.

I had the opportunity on several occasions to condemn the current government's policy, particularly the one of our Prime Minister, who is showing laxness about human rights. More often than not, human rights are used as a bargaining chip in international trade. That is not the policy that should be followed. Of course, we must be open to international trade with all nations. I consider that, very often, boycotts are totally useless, but a clear message must also be sent regarding respect for human rights.

This issue allows us to take action in that direction, first, by sending a clear message to our own fellow citizens, telling them we will not accept that they go outside Canada to abuse young people. The second message is, we must be concerned about these victims, because, as I said earlier, we must be aware that even the best legislation will not be enforced perfectly. So, the best way to solve this problem is to ensure these people, who are in an unacceptable and terrible economic situation, can improve their lot.

We will do this, first, by supporting economic initiatives, but also by asking these countries to adopt democratic rules, that is, to allow their people in general to express themselves in free elections, since, very often, they find themselves in systems where democracy is totally disregarded, and by providing services to their people.

I said earlier and I repeat, and this seems fundamental to me, if the children we are talking about today, who are abused everywhere in the world, were in school, in other words, if they were in the same situation as our own children here in Canada, if the families of these children could take care of them, provide food and shelter, ensure they go to school, take them in hand and keep an eye on them, we would not be discussing this problem, at least not as much as we are doing now. So, we must consider the two aspects.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, it is really as a critic, I do it personally because I believe in these issues, but it is also as the official opposition critic for human rights that I want to bring this aspect to the House's attention.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-27.

It is interesting to read the preamble of the bill. The government is trying to set the stage by using what appears to be a lot of red book promises to indicate where this bill is hoping to go. My concern is that although the direction is fine, although the government is dealing with issues that need to be dealt with, it seems to be falling short of going all the way.

It is important to support the government's direction and the move toward addressing these issues. However, I encourage the government to have the committee look at this bill and then look at the committee's recommendations to flesh the bill out a bit more and to seriously consider taking to a higher degree the steps the government is taking in many of these areas.

I want to talk about a couple of specific issues, one of which is child prostitution. I use my householders for two-way communication in my constituency and I get a good number of responses. I put a couple of questions in one of my householders last fall to which I received 4,386 responses.

One of the questions I asked was: Do you believe that prostitution should be legalized and regulated by the provincial government and the municipalities? The reason I asked it was that a number of people had talked about the need to get control over prostitution in their communities. My constituency is very conservative and I was really amazed and surprised by the response. Over 54 per cent voted yes, they wanted prostitution to be legalized and regulated.

I also offer an opportunity in the householders for constituents to give comments. The comments fleshed out why a very conservative community with traditional families and a senior population thought that maybe it was time to legalize and regulate prostitution. Many of the comments in those 4,300 responses dealt with child prostitution. They thought it was time for some regulation to be brought in to try to keep young people off the streets, to try to somehow deal with a problem they thought was increasing.

Daily we see the tragedy of young people who for whatever reason end up on the street trying to make a living or who are forced to make a living by prostituting themselves. They are young boys and young girls. In urban centres, the bigger cities, their age can be as low as 12 or 13 years. I do not think there is any person in this country who feels that is something we want to encourage or promote. Every Canadian is concerned about young children who are vulnerable, who should have more to look forward to than prostituting themselves.

I look at the amendment the government is proposing, a mandatory minimum of five years for profiting from juvenile delinquency. That acknowledges it should get some sentence but I would suggest there may be cases where we would want it to be more than five years. I understand that is a minimum but we have seen in our justice system that a minimum almost establishes the norm. Whatever the minimum sentence is tends to be the sentence that is given out. The government is going to provide measures to facilitate the arrests. It is nice to know there will be something there to support it.

The government is talking about making it easier for young people to testify against their pimps. They will have some protection so they will not be identified, which I think is very important. Many of those young people are there because they cannot get out, because of threats of bodily harm from their pimps. It is very important if we want to stop this from happening that we make it easier for them to report their pimps and to bring our attention to it.

The other aspect is making it illegal to procure somebody under 18 years. I have concerns that just putting in provisions to make it illegal is not going to stop it. It is already illegal for the 12 and 13-year olds to be on the streets prostituting. We have to do more than just put it in legislation. We have to give the courts the teeth and society the resources to deal with the problem of our young people on the streets. We need preventative measures. We need to give these young people other options, some resources they can go to when they are pulled off the street.

The seriousness of child prostitution or the vulnerability of young people who are on the street was made very clear to me by a tragedy that happened in my community when Melanie Carpenter was murdered. The individual who murdered Melanie Carpenter had a history of violently assaulting two young prostitutes in the Toronto area to the point where they feared for their lives. The sentence that individual got was two years less a day. Because the young people were prostitutes, it was felt there was an element of consent and therefore it was not serious.

We as Canadian legislators have to recognize that the courts have a very important role to play. I hope this legislation and the changes to it will send a very strong message to the courts that Canadians want the courts, the prosecutors, the defence attorneys and the judges to treat seriously people who are encouraging and keeping young people in prostitution and people who are using the child prostitutes.

I will move on to the changes in this legislation that would bring what is called tourist prostitution to an end. The government is recognizing that we cannot condone the use of child prostitutes even if it happens outside of our country. If Canadian citizens are going to Thailand, the Philippines or wherever to avail themselves of child prostitutes, it should be condemned and we should come down with the force of the law.

I commend the government for taking the steps of including charges against Canadians who are availing themselves of child prostitutes outside of Canada. It is something that is being addressed by other countries around the world. Canada is smart in co-operating and becoming part of the international community that is trying to bring an end to this type of abuse of children.

I am reminded of a program I saw a few months ago on CBC. It was a documentary on a Thai group which was trying to relocate young children who had been kidnapped from their rural communities. Many of these children were six to eight years old when they were forcibly removed from their rural communities and put into prostitution in the main cities.

The documentary followed who the children were, how they were removed, how they were taken into the main cities and also who was using the child prostitution services. It was quite sickening to see the aeroplanes full of individuals from North America, Australia, Europe, from all over the world who were visiting those communities for one purpose only, to use these six, eight and ten year old children for sexual gratification. That is not something Canadians encourage or support. I commend the government in its

attempt to bring Canada into the international community by trying to deal with those issues.

There is also the issue of female genital mutilation. I was pleased to support one of our hon. colleagues from the Bloc who introduced a private member's bill to bring something into the Criminal Code that would deal with the issue here in Canada.

I am pleased the government is acknowledging that something has to be done, that female genital mutilation has to be considered to be illegal in this country but I worry that it has not gone far enough. I worry that it is only going to protect young women under the age of 18. A 19-year old girl who is facing that situation needs our protection just as much as a 17-year old does.

There should not be an age limit placed on this protection. The procedure of female genital mutilation should be made illegal. Anybody who is aiding, abetting, recommending or supporting it should be charged as such and treated with all the force of the law. We have to send a very strong message to all people who live in our country that this procedure is something which is not acceptable.

I am concerned with the wording in the legislation which allows for an exception for the medical community. I have a lot of respect for the medical community and I do not for minute want to suggest that there will be an abuse of it. I know there are circumstances where reconstructive surgery and other things that deal with female genital situations are needed.

I want to make sure that this legislation would not allow a medical doctor who agrees with the practice to be able to continue the practice in Canada for whatever reason. That area needs to be looked at more closely. We have to make sure the full protection is there, not just for women under 18, but for all women who are faced with this kind of invasive attack on their person. We have to make sure there is no element where it can be abused in Canada.

I commend the government for having considered the private member's bill which one of our honourable colleagues presented, which was included in this legislation. Again I would have liked the government to have been a little more definitive and a little tougher on that issue.

I will briefly touch upon the issue of stalking and first degree murder. I do not think there is any question that Canadians want individuals who deliberately harass, stalk and threaten another person to be taken to the absolute limit of prosecution. However, I do have to wonder about whether we can justify a first degree murder charge for somebody who was not intending to murder. The full force of the law should be against anybody who is harassing, attacking or threatening.

I have been very upset many times over the past couple of years with the limitation that our law enforcement officers have in protecting individuals who are being stalked or harassed by a predator, an ex-spouse or whomever. There has to be more protection. The government and the courts must deal with it more seriously.

I am not sure that those people should be automatically charged with first degree murder. Our legal system has the ability to charge those offenders with second degree murder, or first degree murder if it can be proven that the intent of the stalking or the harassment was to kill. If the proof is not there, I have difficulty with the fact that automatically if a person has been involved in stalking they will be charged with first degree murder.

This legislation is going in the right direction. I like the fact that the government seems to be listening to a number of issues which private members are bringing forward. I like the idea that the government is trying to address the concerns of safety for women and children. However, this legislation needs work.

I hope that my Reform colleagues, Bloc members and certainly government members who sit on the justice committee will look at areas where the legislation can be improved and toughened to protect a broader scope of Canadian women and children. I hope these changes will see the light of day to make the bill much better. The bill has a good beginning, but it needs work. I hope the justice minister and the government will allow input from the committee to make it a better bill.

I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I hope the bill becomes much stronger in the days to come.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that other members of this House will support some of the amendments I proposed in my speech on Bill C-27, more specifically on genital mutilation and sex tourism.

I note that my colleague who just spoke also agrees with me on the age limit. I do not see why there should be an age limit and why the practice of genital mutilation should be allowed in some cases for women over the age of 18. I think there should be no age limit.

If we want to send a clear message to cultural communities and to eliminate this practice, there must be no exceptions. What kind of message would we send if the law made an exception and allowed this practice in some cases? That is why I will introduce amendments to ensure that there is no age limit and that this procedure cannot be performed on any female individual.

The bill I introduced had a very specific purpose, namely to protect the physical integrity of women and girls. Women's physical integrity can be protected at any age. I think the minister's bill does not address this aspect. The legislation should also apply to any individual who participates in or promotes mutilation.

As the House knows, this cultural practice involves an individual accompanying, encouraging or taking a child, for example, out of the country to undergo this procedure. This is another amendment I would like to make to the minister's bill.

I would also like to see another amendment providing that no exceptions shall be made to allow this surgical procedure. I think that physicians know full well what genital mutilation entails and disagree with this practice, so I do not see why there should be exceptions to allow surgery if the woman is healthy.

I take comfort in seeing that some of my fellow members will support my amendments and I thank my colleague for raising these amendments here in this House today.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleague I am pleased to support her amendments if that is what it is going to do. It brought to my mind that maybe there should be protection for people who go out of the country for the procedure and then return to Canada. Maybe that is another protection we should look at. It is similar to the issue of tourist prostitution. If somebody were to do it, be they Canadian or landed immigrant, and they went out of the country to have it done, then the full weight of the law would still come to bear.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. member to acknowledge that it has been indicated where an individual leaves the country for the purpose of procuring female genital mutilation, that such person would be subject to criminal sanction in this country. Also, where it involved adults, this would be regarded as assault causing bodily harm. The supreme court has indicated that a person cannot consent to bodily harm being inflicted upon them. Therefore, the amendment the hon. member is talking about is not necessary.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, for greater clarity I would like the member to point out where the protection is. I do not see anything dealing with female genital mutilation in the bill which would protect somebody who has it done outside of the country or somebody who has it done and is over the age of 18.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-27, introduced by the Minister of Justice on April 18. It seems to me that the objective of this bill is very worthwhile, in that it will amend the Criminal Code to put an end to child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.

I am very sensitive to this problem as an immigrant, as a member of Parliament and as the official opposition critic on immigration. It is indeed among immigrant women from Africa, Asia and the Middle East that this practice takes on serious proportions. I vigorously condemn such criminal practices as the acts of violence and abuse against women and children that they are. They are a direct attack on their psychological and physical integrity.

These harmful practices inflicted on women and children violate and deny human rights as well as fundamental freedoms.

I look forward to this bill being adopted to finally prohibit and prevent child sex abuse and female genital mutilation altogether. Women and children are full-fledged persons and, as such, they must enjoy every right and freedom enjoyed by the other members of our society.

I am not the only one to be extremely concerned about these issues. Several women's and children's rights groups, from Quebec and across Canada, have been organizing to eradicate child prostitution, child sexual tourism and female genital mutilation. It is interesting to note that, on December 21, 1994, Quebec's human rights commission adopted a position on the practices of female genital mutilation, namely excision and infibulation. According to the commission, such practices threaten the right of women to their integrity, to equality and to non-discrimination. The commission concluded that these practices discriminated against women.

I must commend the Bloc Quebecois member from Quebec who, in 1995, presented Bill C-277 on genital mutilation of female persons. I think her bill was more far-reaching and more complete than this bill by the Minister of Justice.

Like the Bloc members who spoke before me, I think that Bill C-27 has a limited, restricted scope. Bill C-27 could and should go further in several ways.

As regard sex tourism, let me recall certain facts showing the extent of the problem. In the May 1993 edition of L'Actualité , journalist Luc Chartrand stated that between 20,000 and 30,000 young boys were prostitutes in Sri Lanka. According to him, about

10 per cent of tourists are choosing this destination to practice pedophilia.

Sri Lanka is not the only country where pedophilia is widely practised. It is also the case in other poor countries in Asia, like Thailand and the Philippines, and also in Latin America, particularly in the Dominican Republic.

It is with great concern that, a few weeks ago, I watched a Radio-Canada report on this topic. What really shocks me is that there are Canadians who go to the Dominican Republic with the intention of sexually abusing young children and teenagers.

A tragic consequence of sex tourism is the proliferation of AIDS, particularly among young boys. Because of this, clients tend to seek children who have never had sexual relations before, and who are therefore increasingly younger.

There are also clandestine networks through which child pornography magazines can be exchanged, and even children. Sex tourism does create major problems, the most serious one being the fact that these children become slaves.

Canada must put a stop to these criminal acts which violate human rights. We must follow the example of countries such as Germany and Norway, which have already criminalized these unacceptable practices.

This brings me to my first reservation regarding Bill C-27 as it pertains to sex tourism. This reservation has to do with the very definition of the people targeted by the bill. In order to fully eliminate sex tourism, Bill C-27 should not target only those who use child prostitution services abroad.

The wording of the bill should also include those who support the sexual exploitation of children. I am referring to promoters, organizers and travel agencies or companies organizing trips abroad for the purposes of sex tourism involving persons under the age of eighteen. In short, all those who directly or indirectly encourage these criminal practices should be punished.

Second, according to clause 4.1, Bill C-27 only applies to persons who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents. It is important that such a bill also apply to any person living in Canada, whether or not that person is a Canadian citizen. Therefore, this bill would also apply to refugees, asylum seekers, everybody living in Canada on a relatively stable basis.

With regard to genital mutilation, I would like also to give some idea of the scope of the problem. The World Health Organization estimates at between 85 and 115 million worldwide the number of women and girls who have been subjected to excision. This custom mainly involves excising the clitoris and the labia on little girls aged between 5 and 10.

In the countries where this custom is practised, excision on little girls is an integral part of a culture that is sometimes several centuries old. This custom is considered a rite of passage: the little girl then becomes a woman. However, I want to point out that, contrary to some beliefs and claims, no religion accepts nor agrees with female genital mutilation.

We may condemn these customs, but it is difficult to impose our views against the practice of female genital mutilation abroad. However, we must pass legislation to prohibit any female genital mutilation in Canada. These customs have limits.

In this regard, I would like to quote from the declaration and the platform for action adopted in Vienna on June 25, 1993, where the World Conference on Human Rights, after restating that all human rights are universal, indissociable, interdependent and intimately related, pointed out that "even though it is appropriate not to forget the importance of national and regional identities and cultural and religious historical diversities, every state, whatever its political, economic and cultural system may be, has the duty to protect all human rights and all basic freedoms".

Then it points out how important it is to try to "eliminate the contradictions that can exist between the rights of women and the harmful impacts of certain traditional or customary practices, of cultural prejudices and of religious extremism". Further on, in the part dealing with children's rights, the conference "urgently begs states to repeal existing laws and regulations and to eliminate the customs and practices that are discriminatory and harmful to girls".

In Canada, the right not to be subjected to genital mutilation transcends the cultural argument. The right to physical integrity is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

It is important for Canada to adopt legislation prohibiting female genital mutilation, because, from 1986 to 1991, 40,000 immigrants from countries where this practice exists have come to Canada. In 1992 only, another 3,245 immigrants from countries where genital mutilation is tolerated or promoted came to Canada.

I think Bill C-27 is rather vague about the extraterritoriality of the prohibition of genital mutilation. I wish we would include in the bill a provision allowing proceedings in Canada against persons who take a child abroad for genital mutilation. This is important if we are to close a loophole that can be used, and is already being used, to bypass the law and have female genital mutilation performed.

I do not feel comfortable either with the exception provided for in the bill concerning female genital mutilation. This exception would allow mutilation in surgical procedures performed by a

physician for medical reasons or to enable that person to have normal reproductive functions.

First, physicians think this exception is not needed. Dr. André Lalonde, president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, said so very clearly. He stated that female genital mutilation is not a medical procedure per se. Second, instead of banning completely this practice, Bill C-27, with this exception, allows it to go on for reasons of physical health.

In the same vein, I would prefer if the bill did not specify an age of consent for female genital mutilation. The bill before us says that an adult person, that is an 18-year old, can give consent to genital mutilation.

I should remind the House that female genital mutilations are permanent. It scars young girls and women forever. Consent is often the result of a conditioning process, so that the consent given by a child or an adult is questionable.

The establishment of an age limit for consenting to genital mutilation seems to me to be contrary to the objective of Bill C-27, that is to totally eradicate female genital mutilation.

Moreover, I would rather be in favour of legislation allowing for the prosecution of anyone directly or indirectly involved in the practice of female genital mutilation. In my opinion, Bill C-27 is too restrictive on this aspect because it deals only with the people who perform the operation.

Legislation penalizing all those involved would make them both aware of the criminal aspect of female genital mutilation and accountable for their actions. It would also lead to the dismantling of clandestine networks operating in this field, of which there are many unfortunately.

Finally, I believe Bill C-27 is a step in the right direction. Bill C-27 criminalizes child prostitution, sex tourism and women genital mutilation.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will let my hon. colleague catch his breath. He will then be able to answer and proceed with his speech.

I see that yet another colleague of mine will be supporting my amendments. With regard to my amendments, I want to point out that I have consulted various stakeholders who are concerned about genital mutilation and they agreed that this bill will no go far for several reasons. The amendment I want to refer to deals with genital mutilation and the concept of extraterritoriality.

Since this concept was used in the sex tourism bill, I do not see why it could not be included in the genital mutilation bill. Any individual who is a Canadian citizen could then be prosecuted. We know full well that mutilation very often happens outside the country. Under the bill introduced by the minister, these offenders would not be prosecuted, because no new offence would be created. The purpose of the bill I introduced was to create a new offence.

The minister's bill only defines genital mutilation as part of the assaults stipulated in the legislation. I had hoped for a provision listing the various aspects of genital mutilation and all the prohibited acts, something that would apply not only to the individual performing the mutilation but to anyone encouraging such a practice or ensuring that an individual undergoes genital mutilation.

I would like my hon. colleague to tell us if he thinks extraterritoriality is a good principle that could help to reinforce this bill.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Quebec who, last year, introduced an excellent bill concerning female genital mutilation and who then made a very good speech. She continued in the same vein today. Indeed, this is an extremely important bill.

On the subject of the territoriality of legislation, this is an important principle of international law, but one for which there is an increasing number of exceptions. There are, for example, the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, who can be prosecuted anywhere. It is important, and I believe that in this bill the concept of territoriality should be applied.

People who commit infractions outside the country could be prosecuted here, and this is precisely an essential element of this bill. Canadians, not only Canadians citizens, but also residents, refugees and asylum seekers, who commit crimes in another country could be prosecuted in Canada. I believe this is the way to get rid of this reprehensible practice. If the principle of extraterritoriality is not applied, the bill's effect will be too limited and it will not have much significance.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments but I suggest that in a number of areas there are other and better interpretations of the criminal law than were presented by his remarks.

He indicated he would have preferred if the legislation had explicitly dealt with people who are tour operators or travel agents who offer sex tours. These provisions are already contained within the Criminal Code of Canada. Sections 212.1(a) and (g) specifically provide that everyone who procures, attempts to procure or solicits a person to have illicit sexual intercourse with another person, whether in or out of Canada, or procures a person to enter or leave Canada for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of an indictable offence.

It is clear that sex tour operators or travel agents who organize these types of tours are guilty in Canada of a criminal offence.

Canadian nationals and all permanent residents who obtain or attempt to obtain outside of Canada the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 are guilty of a criminal offence, not just Canadian citizens as was indicated by the hon. member.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not enough to mention citizens and permanent residents because there are people in Canada who are neither citizens nor permanent residents, particularly refugees claimants. They come to Canada, file a refugee status claim and spend one, two or three years here while the Board assesses their claim. So, I think the bill should be amended to include that relatively large category of persons.

Second, the hon. member told me that travel agencies are already included in the bill, but I do not see that very clearly. If it were possible to clarify that a little, it would be a major step forward, particularly since it was clearly specified in the bill tabled by the member for Quebec that travel agencies or transportation organizations would also be guilty of those offences. According to what the hon. member said, that is included in the minister's bill, but I think it should be clarified and specified.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Madam Speaker, I rise today obviously to speak in favour of Bill C-27, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

At the outset I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Justice, for championing a bill designed to improve the Criminal Code provisions in four key areas vital to the health and safety of women and children both in Canada and around the world.

I speak to this bill both as Secretary of State for the Status of Women and as a physician who has, in every one of the four aspects of this legislation, seen firsthand the results of this type of imbalance of power in society. The four aspects of this legislation are child sex tourism, child prostitution in Canada, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation.

Hon. members will recall that many of the amendments before us were introduced in the last session as Bill C-119. Since the new session we have added a new section relating to child sex tourism and a further amendment relating to child prostitution in Canada.

There are four things the bill has in common. They speak to the issue of systemic violence in society, particularly against women and children, and the commitment of the government to removing that violence.

Last year in Beijing at the fourth world conference there was a great deal of support for this issue of dealing with systemic violence, not simply by legislation but by dealing with systemic violence at its roots.

Systemic violence requires strong comprehensive provisions that will deal not only with the legal components of this but also with issues that have to do with sensitizing the population, with prevention, with education, with treating the person who is harassed or violated and with dealing with the rehabilitation of the violator or the harassor. These things are very important if we are to put an end to this kind of violence in society. While this is an important component of a comprehensive strategy, it is not the only component.

As well, many of these issues of violence stem from roots that have to do with cultural and religious backgrounds, with social issues which make violence a traditional imbalance of power in our society. Those in society who have very little support, who have very little voice to speak for themselves, who have very little autonomy and independence are the ones who are traditionally the victims of violence. We can see in all four of these issues they tend to deal with women and children who are still among the people in society who cannot speak for themselves or who cannot defend themselves.

In Beijing it was clearly stated religion is not an excuse for mutilation and for violence.

I urge everyone in the House to support the bill. Going abroad to have sex with children is exploitation at its worst, at its most shameful. It means we will not do in this country certain things we feel ashamed of, and we go to another country where we can be hidden by anonymity to exploit and abuse other people's children.

The Criminal Code already addresses certain aspects of sex tourism. Section 212 could, now that we have seen it in its full entirety as an amendment, affect tour operators, travel agents and agencies offering sex tours. Subsection 1(a) deals with specifically providing or attempting to procure whether in or out of Canada, and that obviously refers to those who would set up tours or agencies which would allow people to go on this kind of venture. Subsection 1(g) deals with entering or leaving Canada for the purpose of prostitution. This is an indictable offence which will be given not less than ten years.

Canadians are seen as role models to the world. For us as a country to allow Canadians to go across the world to exploit and violate children is absolutely unacceptable. The bill sends a clear signal that this behaviour is unacceptable at home and it is unacceptable abroad, especially with the extraterritorial provisions in the bill.

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Belgium, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and the United States have already adopted legislation which permits prosecution of nationals for sexual activities with children. A world congress against sexual exploitation of children will be held in Stockholm, Sweden on August 27 of this year. Canada will send government representatives. The congress is expected to develop a declaration and a plan of action.

Clearly there is an international environment which upholds the principles we in Canada have included in the amendments to this bill.

Bill C-27 further amends section 7 of the Criminal Code allowing proceedings in Canada against Canadian citizens who engage in activities associated with child prostitution when they are outside the country. This is an issue of morality. It is an issue of human rights.

The second component of the amendments deals with changing these things at home. As my mother used to say, charity begins at home. It would be hypocrisy for us to make provisions which would create a problem for people who go abroad and not deal with the people at home who continue to exploit children.

These amendments will make the pimping of a child under 18 an aggravated offence and will look at those who procure children under the age of 18 and those who use violence. When we talk about systemic violence we are talking about an imbalance of power. The perpetrators will use that power and violence to make those children under 18 continue to prostitute themselves.

The amendment will deal with a very important component in the imbalance of power, where fear and anxiety play a major part. Many people who have been exploited in this kind of system are afraid to speak against their abuser or their exploiter. In this case, it will be made easier for children to testify behind a screen so that they do not have to be afraid of what might occur after they have testified.

The third component of the amendment makes it illegal to cause someone to fear for their safety or the safety of someone unknown to them by following them, by threatening them, by communicating threats to them either at home or at work. This amendment is important because it will ensure that murder committed while stalking will now be seen to be first degree murder whether or not it can be proven that it was planned and deliberate.

The penalty for first degree murder is 25 years with no parole. This is really important because in the past the argument was always made that the person did not intend to go ahead and do this, that it happened by mistake and was a crime of passion. Stalking clearly says that a person is seeking to threaten and harm someone. Now that person should be made responsible.

Finally, the fourth component of this bill deals with female genital mutilation. This is a very complex and sensitive issue because it deals with cultural and religious beliefs. However, it has become an international cause celebre. The World Health Organization, UNICEF, United Nations and Beijing discussed this issue and decided that it was absolutely unacceptable to use religion or culture as a reason to inflict violence on anyone.

As a physician, I can say that female genital mutilation is not violence against children or against women solely. It also carries with it the health problem of chronic pain, chronic pelvic inflammatory disease, chronic disease that a woman has to live with for the rest of her life making her an invalid in many instances. This is violence and abusive power at its worst because religion is used to say that someone must succumb to this kind of violence.

Paragraph 232 of the platform for action at Beijing requires governments to prohibit female genital mutilation wherever it exists and gives vigorous support to efforts among non-government and community organizations and religious institutions to eliminate such practices.

While I said earlier that we require comprehensive plans and strategies to deal with the issue, legislation is one of them. Education, sensitivity training and awareness must be a component. Status of Women Canada, the Solicitor General and Health Canada have been working with communities and grassroots organizations to deal with this issue.

We have found that communities which have been subjected to some of these violent episodes such as female genital mutilation, it is very difficult for people to speak out. It is very difficult for them to speak against what is a religious practice, especially when they live in these communities.

Dealing with these issues on the ground and going out into the communities is very important. We need to talk about systemic violence, not only in terms of legislation but in terms of setting clear, comprehensive, holistic strategies where we work across departments, where we work across governmental levels and where we work within the community and with NGOs to ensure that we deal with these issues fully.

At this time, the Criminal Code prohibits female genital mutilation in Canada. It also prohibits having a child removed from Canada to have female genital mutilation performed. The Criminal Code states that it is illegal. One cannot remove a person from the country in order to perform an illegal act.

This amendment clarifies this. It also adds the very strong educational and sensitivity component we were talking about earlier by defining female genital mutilation as aggravated assault.

Maiming and wounding a person is not a cultural practice. Anyone under 18 cannot consent or have any person consent to having this terrible act done on them.

Underlying all these four amendments to the Criminal Code is something very important. It speaks to removing that imbalance of power that is systemic in our society today. It is a way of warning abusers in positions of authority or trust who abuse through religion or parenting. In many instances, children as young as five years of age have been subjected to child sex tourism in some countries of the world. This is not sex tourism. It is pedophilia.

The exploitation and abuse of those who are at the lowest rung of the ladder, women and children, must be stopped. I see this bill as being a step in dealing with the issue.

I urge everyone in the House to vote for the bill. Let us continue to work on other ways to bring about, not only legislation, but comprehensive strategies so that this country can be a safe place for women and their children and eventually the world will no longer exploit them.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. She pointed out that under this bill those who commit murder who have first stalked their victim, if convicted, can be sentenced to first degree murder even though it is not required to prove intent and that the individual would have to serve 25 years.

In view of what the hon. member has said, would she be willing to support the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal Code which would allow that murderer to apply for parole eligibility after serving just 15 years?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the hon. member is addressing. I cannot support the complete elimination of this section of the Criminal Code. We have to look at how to deal with the issue in a different way. We cannot just look at how the law deals with specific individuals.

The law must be broad in its range. Justice must be meted out in accordance with the crime. Has the person been rehabilitated? Serial murderers cannot be lumped in with people who may have committed a single murder. The circumstances of the murder must be looked at. The families of victims must be consulted as well as the people in the communities who were there at the time of the murder. It must be looked at in a more comprehensive way rather than a knee-jerk reaction to something which could be meaningful. If a decision is made that is going to cut a deep swath in society, we may be doing more harm than good.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women says that Bill C-27 is a step forward, and I think it is true. I would like to ask her if she agrees with the amendments we want to make to improve the bill.

When she says that mutilation is an illegal act, she is right, but the communities who practise genital mutilation do not intend to commit an illegal act. For them, it is just a cultural and not a religious practice. To improve the bill, I would like certain amendments to be made.

Does the minister, who is also responsible for the status of women, agree with the age limit which means that we would tolerate that a woman over eighteen years of age cannot defend the physical integrity of her body? I think if we want to send a clear message to cultural communities, we must not establish an age limit. This bill wants to send a clear message, but the government is diluting the bill that I brought forward previously.

After the minister made his intentions known on this bill and particularly on genital mutilation, I consulted a few organizations that agree with these amendments and that feel this bill does not go far enough. Anyway, we will hear the various groups concerned with this problem in committee.

I ask the Secretary of State if she would support the inclusion in the bill of people who encourage or assist a person who performs this type of procedure. For the minister, the only person concerned is the one who performs the procedure.

We know that it is a cultural custom and that it is the community which allows a seven or eight-year-old girl to be subjected to genital mutilation, namely the excision of the clitoris. It is atrocious. If we want to send a clear message, there has to be no exceptions, not even for physicians allowing such a medical procedure for health reasons. Doctors know what mutilations are all about.

Also, I would like the Secretary of State to explain to us why an exception was made for physicians when the society of obstetricians does not agree. According to the society, physicians know full well what constitutes an act of mutilation and there is no need to make an exception in their case since it could lead to abuses. I would like the Secretary of State to answer these three questions.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks a very interesting question. Not being a lawyer, I can say it is often very difficult to interpret laws. However, in many instances when a law is made or

it is generic enough that it can affect people who in the course of their duties are doing something that is in fact for the health of someone but could be interpreted as otherwise they need to have some sort of protection.

It may very well be that when we speak of doing any sort of operation on a woman or on a child for their health there are many different operations that can be done. For example, in instances where a child or an adult whose external sexual organs do not function properly it may be necessary to do certain operations that would enable them to function properly. This is very different from what female genital mutilation is all about. That is an operation which prevents them from functioning properly.

There is a fine line between things we may need to do to enhance a person's health, which is not necessarily mutilation. There are a lot of operations in medicine in which one has to open up certain areas so that the woman can menstruate properly. One wants to be sure that a physician doing some of those operations for the health of the patient does not have to be seen to be committing female genital mutilation. I believe this would have to be done on a case by case basis where one would clearly define what the person is doing.

I thank the hon. member very much for that extremely important question.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up what the hon. member across the way touched on. When she indicated that anyone convicted of murder as a result of stalking would serve 25 years imprisonment, she should clarify that. She knows that under section 745 of the Criminal Code that individual would have the advantage of early parole after serving just 15 years.

I do not think that should be side stepped, it is a fact. I do not think she was absolutely frank and forthright in her suggestion that anyone convicted of murder for stalking would have to serve 25 years. They, like all murderers in this country under today's law, would have the advantage of section 745 and would be able to expend taxpayer dollars in an attempt to lower the parole ineligibility after serving just 15 years.

Nevertheless, I rise today in support of the government's bill, C-27. In 1993, 52 Reform members came to Ottawa with a commitment to the Canadian people to reform Parliament. Included in those reforms was the promise to be supportive whenever possible of government legislation. We promised not to oppose government legislation simply for the sake of opposition or to gain political points.

If a bill enhances public safety we will support it. We therefore support the government's initiative in Bill C-27. Bill C-27 is a series of amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with child prostitution, child sex tourism, criminal harassment and female genital mutilation. It will help reduce violence against women and children. Therefore we support it.

The bill is not the final answer. A number of legislative changes must be implemented if we are to continue to eradicate domestic violence and child abuse. Attention must be focused on crime prevention, starting with the identification of the cause of domestic violence.

Clause 5 of Bill C-27 amends Criminal Code section 268, aggravated assault. Under Bill C-27 infibulation in whole or in part to the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a young person under the age of 18 will be considered aggravated assault punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. The thought that there are adults in the country who are willing to subject their children to that kind of treatment is the most abhorrent aspect of the whole issue.

Therefore we will push for an amendment under this clause of Bill C-27 to completely eliminate this barbaric and inhuman practice to protect all women in the country.

In view of the concern expressed in 1992 by the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons this Criminal Code amendment is necessary. The Ontario college reported that there had been a rise in the number of requests for infibulations in the country. Infibulation is the cutting off of a young girl's genital parts, including the clitoris, and the subsequent sewing together of the opening leaving room for only urination and menstruation.

Just thinking about it, just reading about it, just speaking about it fills me with a degree of repulsion that makes me wonder why the government has waited as long as it has. As my colleague from Surrey-White Rock mentioned, we are indebted to the member for Quebec who I think spurred the government in this direction with her private member's bill. I congratulate her.

Canada has been cited by the World Health Organization as being one of forty countries involved in the practice of what has become known as female circumcision, correctly referred to as female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation causes a number of 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; anemia; and disfiguring cysts that not only reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure but often result in extreme pain during intercourse and can even prohibit it.

Suffice to say, the Canadian medical community says that female genital mutilation has absolutely no benefits but is completely unnecessary and extremely harmful.

An assistant in my office watched a documentary on female genital mutilation. As the mother of a five-year old girl she says she cannot erase the horrifying impression the film left upon her. The documentary was about the cultural practice of female mutila-

tion. In the film a four-year old girl sat on what appeared to be a stool upon a dirt floor while an elderly woman from the community using a crude instrument cut off her clitoris. No anesthetic was used. No freezing was used. As the girl screamed in horror and pain, the woman proceeded without any sign of anguish on the part of the mother, who not only witnessed the barbaric mutilation of her daughter but was part of it. The mother showing no sign of emotion restrained her daughter. When the procedure was complete the girl laid on a dirty mat, sobbing, with her feet tied together and with her hands bound.

I relay this horrible story to the House because we as a nation must signal to the world that the practice of mutilating young girls is absolutely deplorable and therefore must be outlawed everywhere.

In Somalia and other countries the practice meets cultural demands or cultural standards or preserves a sense of identity to their community, or it is done to preserve virginity and family honour. It is time the UN stepped in and protected children worldwide from being assaulted and abused in the name of culturally acceptable practices. The UN has been asked to put a stop to child labour. Therefore it is absolutely imperative that the UN move to stop this most savage abuse of children.

I urge the Government of Canada to take the lead on the issue by initiating talk with those countries that would be supportive of UN action in this regard. We must take every measure possible to protect children in this country and throughout the world.

I therefore fully support the section of Bill C-27 which makes it an offence for a Canadian citizen to obtain paid sexual services of children abroad or to engage in an activity associated with child prostitution when they are out of the country.

The most alarming part of the issue is the fact that we have adults in this country who will travel to other countries to have sexual relations with children. It is alarming for me to realize there are adults from other countries who will come to Canada and take advantage of and abuse children from dysfunctional families who are prostituting themselves. There is a lot of work for us to do within our own country as well as internationally.

I would be remiss, however, if I did not question the effectiveness of this Canadian measure in eliminating child prostitution throughout the world. While it may bring Canadian citizens to justice, it will not stop citizens from other countries from engaging in sexual relations with children. Again I believe the only way to eradicate this form of sexual abuse against children would be through UN action and action of other international bodies.

I also support the portion of Bill C-27 which imposes a mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment for persons found guilty of profiting from juvenile prostitution. I have some concerns regarding the effectiveness of imposing only a five-year minimum sentence. Pimping is a serious offence and as such should carry a severe penalty. I will therefore be seeking the advice of the witnesses appearing before the standing committee regarding possible amendments to this portion of Bill C-27.

Under subsection 212(4) of the Criminal Code obtaining the sexual service of a person under the age of 18 years is an indictable offence liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Bill C-27 alters this section of the code by adding that it is an offence to obtain sexual service of persons believed to be under the age of 18 years. I support this change.

I would, however, recommend an additional change to make the procurement of sexual service of persons under the age of 18 years liable to a minimum of five years. Let us cut off the demand. If the Johns using these young children, abusing both girls and boys, knew they faced a serious term of imprisonment, they might think twice before they express their lust upon the children of our country.

Buying sex from children is just as bad as selling it. The sex trade in this country is a booming industry in which children appear to be a hot commodity. Child sex consumers demand young flesh. Pimps are parasites, some of them violent, who happily supply the demand. The demand for child prostitutes will not go away as long as child sex consumers sleep easily at night knowing their risk for arrest is minimal and if caught the penalty is only a maximum of five years.

According to the B.C. attorney general's office only eight B.C. men have been charged for buying sex from a juvenile since 1988. By contrast, 215 pimping charges were laid between 1988 and 1993. Sexually exploited children deserve protection in the Criminal Code with all other children who are victims of sexual predators.

Whether they are sexually abused on the street instead of in their homes or schools, the penalty ought to be the same. All children, especially those who are products of abusive and dysfunctional families which have forced them to retreat to the streets where they are further abused, deserve equal protection under the law.

If we ever hope to reduce and eventually eliminate juvenile prostitution, we must address the reasons children are turning to the streets where they are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Despite the justice minister's admission in the fall of 1995 that he had no money for crime prevention, we must implement preventive crime measures, particularly in relation to juvenile prostitution and in relation to young offenders.

As we go about the country reviewing the Young Offenders Act, the 12-year review, we should talk to groups and organizations doing early identification and preventive work to keep young

children out of the criminal justice system, prostitution and the drug trade. There are ways and means. We must spend more of the $10 billion that we spend at the back end of the system in preventive programs. They are there and they need our help. We can keep these young kids off the streets, out of prostitution, out of drugs and out of the criminal justice system.

Those children who are turning to the streets and a life of crime must be given an alternative safe haven where they can have some hope for and assistance in having a positive and productive future.

Finally I touch briefly upon the portion of Bill C-27 regarding harassment. We are all aware of the growing problem of domestic violence in the country and the need for the section on criminal harassment outlined in the bill. We need more legislation and more preventive measures in relation to domestic violence in the country, including more power for the police to investigate and prosecute people who abuse their spouses.

If the justice minister thinks Bill C-27 and his gun registration legislation are the only measures needed to combat domestic violence, I suggest he is wrong. Firearms registration will not eliminate or decrease this form of violence. This fact was evident in the recent and horrible shooting death of 10 members of a Vernon, B.C., family by an estranged and distraught spouse.

Now only did the police in that case not follow a 1993 government policy to investigate cases of domestic violence, including those cases where there is no co-operation by the victim, they issued a gun permit to a person who had allegations of violence and abuse launched against him.

I quote from an April 10, 1996 Globe and Mail article which states:

This mass killing of 10 people last week in Vernon, B.C., has revealed fatal flaws and everyday limitations to Canada's much vaunted gun control laws.

The two handguns used-in the killings were acquired legally because there weren't enough police officers, enough public funding and enough political pressure to pursue tell-tale doubts that he might have been dangerous.

In closing I reiterate my opening statement. We support Bill C-27, but we hope to introduce amendments that will enhance its effectiveness in eliminating juvenile prostitution, domestic violence and female genital mutilation.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Québec, for her courage and tenacity. She has risen regularly in the House to demand new legislation on the practice of genital mutilation. She has tenaciously raised several questions with the minister regarding these abusive practices.

I therefore take pleasure in speaking to this bill for the second time, since I did so already when my colleague tabled Bill C-248. I am pleased that my colleague's voice has been heard by the Minister of Justice, leading us to today's debate on Bill C-27.

The purpose of this bill is to modify the Criminal Code with respect to violence toward women and children. It addresses a number of aspects, procurement, criminal harassment, and the protection of child witnesses, themes which have been addressed in greater depth by some of my other colleagues.

For my part, I shall be concentrating on two aspects of particular importance to me, sex tourism and genital mutilation.

In the first case, sex tourism, Bill C-27 modifies the current wording in order to make it easier to arrest and prosecute the customers of child prostitutes in Canada and elsewhere. This bill will remedy an unacceptable situation, one which has often gone unpunished in the past.

The aim of this bill is also to introduce the principle of extraterritoriality, which will allow Canada to prosecute an individual, even though the act may take place in another country. Unlike the Helms-Burton trade legislation in the United States, which we oppose, the extraterritorial nature of legislation on sexual tourism is intended to protect human rights, basic rights that justify setting aside normal legislative principles.

The text of Bill C-27 as it stands is, however, incomplete, since it does not provide for the prosecution of the promoters of travel abroad for the purposes of sexual tourism and of those organizing, providing transportation and having any involvement with such trips. It would be entirely appropriate to include such provisions so the bill would be as complete as possible and so the victims of juvenile prosecution may be afforded the best protection possible.

The argument that other provisions in the Criminal Code could make such prosecution possible does not hold. Where human rights are concerned, we cannot run the risk of error or misinterpretation. Express provisions should therefore be added to cover these categories of offender so it would be clear that they could be prosecuted just like those committing the act under the terms of the law.

In this regard, the wording of Bill C-246 that my colleague for Quebec introduced earlier this session is entirely adequate since, in addition to forbidding juvenile prostitution, it provides that those who take or transport people to a common bawdy-house where people under 18 years of age can be found are guilty.

The other point which makes me think of Bill C-27 as incomplete is the fact that it does not apply to people who are neither Canadian citizens nor landed immigrants. In fact, clause 1 of the bill states that someone can be prosecuted if this person is a

Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act. But there are other categories of people that could be included, that is refugees or asylum seekers, for instance.

I wish to stop my comments here concerning sexual tourism, because I want to spend a little more time commenting female genital mutilation. As the critic for health, it is a clause that is of particular concern to me, considering my responsibilities.

I want it to be clear, however, that it is unacceptable for us to still be dealing in 1996 with problems as serious as sexual tourism. Abusers still go abroad to satisfy their sexual needs with children. We are told that these children are younger and younger, considering the HIV contamination that is rampant in developing or poor countries, where numerous vacationers travel every year.

That is inadmissible. Last week, on Radio-Canada, we saw young girls of 10, 11 or 12 years of age and people who were asking sexual services from these children declaring freely that it is nothing serious since their culture allows that behaviour.

This is inadmissible. It is horrendous and it is time that someone took the matter in hand and that a clear and complete bill was passed. It is time that these practices, which deny children their rights, be prohibited and criminalized for once and for all. It is as if our children were not persons. We should not sexually abuse children; even animals do not do that.

This is inadmissible. I hope we will pass a significant bill to put an end to these practices. It cannot be true that a country like Canada, which advocates the protection of human rights, and I think that includes child rights, would leave the door open to those people who abuse children.

I would like to turn to the clause of Bill C-27 concerning excision and female genital mutilation. I think that this clause is a step in the right direction. But even here, there is room for improvement.

I have been an active member of women's groups for nearly 30 years. Right from the first time I met with women's groups, the first subject they brought up was their concern about genital mutilation. Women's groups across the world have long been condemning practices of this kind.

It is fortunate that we before us a bill, but it should not, as for child sex tourism, barely touch the problem, deal with prevention or information, but it must give clear warning that this practice is a crime, that any such violation of women's genitals constitutes a mutilation. Everybody who comes to this country, everybody who lives in this country, must know that, here, in Canada, female genital mutilation is a crime, a violation of the Criminal Code, just like impaired driving.

I would like to address this issue in more detail so as to make the people listening to us very much aware of this type of practice. It is not a question of five or six cases per year per country. Studies published in 1993-1994 show that between 85 and 114 million women alive today are the victims of genital mutilation.

According to certain recent statistics, their number increases by 2 million every year in some 40 countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. These practices are performed on young girls aged between 4 and 10 as an average. This is appalling.

Although impressive, these statistics say nothing of the trauma endured by these girls, most of them very young. They say nothing of the pain during and after these mutilations, nor the health problems several will be plagued with for the rest of their lives.

Often performed under dubious conditions by people without any medical knowledge, mutilations may cause many health conditions. I will only name a few: haemorrhaging, incontinence, abscess, infection, trauma, state of chock, and infertility among others.

To perform these procedures, poorly sterilized instruments are used, sometimes a simple kitchen knife. According to a document issued by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, sugar, eggs, thorns and palm ribs are also used. These irreversible procedures are extremely painful and often performed without anaesthesia, and they often result in sexual and psychological trauma and complications for the victim. I do not believe it necessary to describe this practice to understand what we are dealing with.

It is clear this practice is unacceptable and must absolutely not be tolerated. Furthermore, we must make sure that those guilty of such an act are severely punished.

The justice minister decided not to create a specific offense for excision. His decision is based on two arguments: first, those who practice excision can be prosecuted under existing provisions. It is very hard to do so in a country such as ours because, when people arrive here, that practice is part of their culture and they will not denounce each other.

So, how can we prosecute those guilty of excision? We must tell all the people who come to Canada that here, it is a criminal act and that we will not tolerate it. That is why I said earlier that we should not say it is already in the Criminal Code. That is not enough. We have made several requests along that line before. It was part of the bill presented by my colleague, the member for Quebec. It does not work.

Several doctors across Canada have said that they often get phone calls or visits by people who ask them to perform an excision. Their code of ethics keeps them from denouncing those people to the RCMP. We saw recently the case of a young girl, about four years old, whose mother had gone shopping and whose grandmother decided to perform that mutilation on the child. Do you think the mother, deeply upset by what the grandmother had done, would have reported her to the RCMP and ask that she be imprisoned? That is the type of situation we are talking about. People for whom excision is a cultural practice must know, when they come to our country, that it is a criminal act here and that if ever there are accusations against them, they will go to prison.

Second, the justice minister decided to focus on education and prevention. In my opinion, this is not reason enough to justify not creating a separate offence. As I said earlier, I am all for prevention and information. This should be done, but it is just not enough. In the words of Machiavelli, virtue alone has no effect unless it is reinforced by a degree of deterrence. Hence the need to include in the Criminal Code a provision dealing specifically with female genital mutilation, so that people will see that this particular practice is illegal in our country.

Similarly, in light of the fact that the operation on Canadian nationals is often carried out abroad, the minister should give the provision on female genital mutilation extraterritorial effect, as he did for child sex tourism. It would then be possible to prosecute in Canada persons who take a child abroad or arrange her transport for the operation to be carried out. This extraterritorial effect would prevent these persons from continuing to circumvent the law and more efficiently protect children, which is the stated purpose of the act.

Third, I would like to dispute the exception made for so-called necessary surgical procedures, as the medical profession does not recognize female genital mutilation as a medical act. There is therefore no need to provide for such procedures in a piece of legislation.

There is also a provision in Bill C-27 about an adult consenting to a form of genital mutilation.

I reject this possibility with great vigour as it defeats the purpose, which is eradicating female genital mutilation.

In the name of what principle can we state in an enactment that a person can consent to mutilation? How do we expect to eradicate an age-old cultural practice which is widespread in certain cultures by providing for consent? A 22 or 23-year old immigrant may then request to be mutilated because, in her family and culture, she has so been indoctrinated. This is an unacceptable practice and it is imperative that it be prohibited here, in Canada; whatever the reason, this practice is reprehensible.

Prevention, yes, but we must first pass specific legislation to that effect, like Bill C-235, which would make the practice of female genital mutilation illegal. After all, why close the barn door after the horse has left?

In conclusion, education and prevention are all fine and good, but they are not enough. We must monitor the situation, find and denounce the culprits and, above all, really punish them.

We must act quickly, because the existing provisions do not prevent this practice. There are more and more serious concerns about the effectiveness of a simple policy of prevention through education. The only avenue remaining is for legislators to enact an extraterritorial law that applies to the whole population and criminalizes practices such as excision, sex tourism, harassment and other forms of abuse.

Bill C-27 may represent a step in the right direction, but there are still many improvements to be made to correct this situation in a really effective way once and for all.

France, Great Britain and Sweden have already done so. Norway and several American states have also tightened their laws in this regard. The time has come for us to take concrete action in this matter. It must be made clear to everyone that sexual violence against women and children is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. Everyone must know that these are criminal acts and that those who commit them, whether here or elsewhere in the world, cannot escape justice and will have to answer for their actions before the law.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments. However, a number of things are, with respect, in error.

It was suggested it would not be illegal to conduct female genital mutilation on someone over the age of 18. That is not the case. It is illegal. The supreme court has made it very clear one cannot consent to aggravated assault, which female genital mutilation is, and therefore it is illegal.

It was also suggested tour operators or those who organize sex tours are not subject to the law. As I indicated before, the Criminal Code already contains provisions which specifically make it clear that travel agents or tour operators offering sex tours are guilty of a criminal offence in Canada.

It was also suggested that people who travel outside the country to have female genital mutilation performed would not be subject to the law. This is also an error in that anybody who leaves the country for the purpose of committing a criminal offence, which female genital mutilation is, is guilty of an offence.

I wanted to clarify some misconceptions put forward but I thank hon. members for their general support of the legislation.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I say to the member: why make an exception? We are here to defend the integrity of all women and all children. Why come up with an exception? If we agree that female genital mutilation is illegal, if we prohibit it here and if it is not practised here in this country, why would we make an exception and put an age limit whereby a woman over eighteen years of age would have the right to have that surgical procedure done to her?

As I said, and I may not have made it clear enough, there are certain cultures which resort to what we call brainwashing. Women are told: "You will not find a husband if you do not go along with this practice". Women who want to marry see this as cultural information and think the practice is an acceptable one. So, they will ask that it be performed on them.

We say that here in Canada we do not want this to be done to anyone, whether the person is 18, 5 or 40 years old. The bill introduced by my colleague sought, as she pointed out, to ensure that this practice would not be tolerated in Canada, regardless of age.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the inconsistency my hon. friend pointed out.

If the existing law is there to protect adult women now, why does that law not now protect those under the age of 18 as well? If the law is there in sufficient form to protect those over 18, why is it not there to protect those under 18?

I see an inconsistency. To clarify it and leave no doubt, I am sure we will be bringing amendments in to do that very thing. For greater clarification to everyone concerned in this issue, I would like to see that part of the bill changed so that it does not seem to exclude anyone over the age of 18.

This legislation should state that clearly and unequivocally. I support the member in her concern.