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.