Mr. Speaker, Bill C-27 addresses a number of issues, including female genital mutilation, criminal harassment, child sex tourism, testimony by children and procuring.
I will deal first with child sex tourism, and then female genital mutilation. Both are problems I feel a particular concern about, having initiated the related bills. I will conclude by discussing the three other aspects of the bill.
First of all, I will look at child sex tourism. I will begin by telling you a story reported in the November 1993 Reader's Digest .
In 1992, near the border of Thailand, a young girl of 14 was walking toward the rice fields where her parents were working. Suddenly, a truck stopped in front of her and the driver forced her to get in. She was illegally confined in a brothel in Bangkok and raped ten times a day. When she cried out, she was beaten. She was robbed of her youth.
In another country, Sri Lanka, men from London, Stuttgart, and San Francisco tan on the beach. Not far away, young Ceylonese boys lie on the sand. A middle-aged German accosts a ten-year old. He asks his name and, without any further ado, orders him to accompany him to his hotel. This is how they contribute to the country's economy, it is said.
These are just two of hundreds of cases reported by journalists and others who have looked into child sex tourism. These two
examples are a good illustration of the terrible reality behind the sexual exploitation of children.
As I have just said, this is a terrible reality, because we have here one of mankind's most reprehensible behaviours, the exploitation and victimization of children for sexual reward.
What makes child sex tourism particularly terrible is that the children that are its victims are already disadvantaged. They are poor and come from developing countries where people's basic needs are not always met, far from it.
In the name of the almighty dollar, these children are kidnapped, held in brothels, beaten, humiliated and continually exposed to the worst diseases, from which they will eventually die in their early twenties, just when our children are entering adulthood and setting out on a life full of promise. That is the "local" aspect of the operation.
Then there is the customer, who comes from a rich country and is personally well off. This person can afford trips to exotic countries for the purpose, sometimes the sole purpose, of purchasing the sexual services of children.
Let us not fool ourselves, this customer knows full well that he is committing a criminal act. He knows full well that involvement in the same activity in his own country would put him at risk of landing in jail for several years. This very morning, our newspapers were reporting that an Ontario man had been sentenced to three years in prison for having been found guilty of sexual relations with children between the ages of 9 and 14.
Just because this is taking place elsewhere is not a reason not be concerned by it. As I was saying, the customer knows full well that this is one of the behaviours his society tolerates least. Why then should he feel so free to go abroad to take advantage of children in other countries?
Some of these homosexual pedophiles claim to feel great love for their victims, and claim that the children feel the same way about them. They also claim that our laws are prohibitive and ought to acknowledge the possibility of supposedly affectionate relations between adults and children.
I would remind you that these children are often no more than 10 years old, sometimes even younger. This is an absolutely fallacious argument. How can anyone believe that a child forced to prostitute himself with strangers, sometimes horrifying numbers of them in one day, can feel any sort of affection whatsoever for his aggressors? The answer to this question is so obvious as to not even merit a reply.
Another argument these tourists raise is the matter of cultural differences. They claim that in the countries where they go to purchase the services of children there is a different mentality, that these youngsters are love children, that sexual morality is different there, that sexual relations between children and adults are perceived differently, are part of the mores of the country. What nonsense.
We need only listen to the testimony of these poor children to know that this argument is, at the very least, misleading propaganda and, at most, a totally abusive justification of attacks on defenceless victims who are totally at the mercy of their tormenters.
What is more, how could these same people explain that these same foreign countries themselves have legislation against juvenile prostitution? Are not the laws of a country supposed to reflect the morality of its people?
While it appears true that, in certain countries, the laws on child prostitution are not being applied as fully as they ought, we must not rule out poverty based corruption as an explanation. It is in no way a matter of different sexual morals.
Our society does not tolerate the purchase of sexual services from children, whether at home or abroad. Our society does not tolerate the kidnapping of children, who are mistreated in order to provide thrills for certain adults. This practice flies in the face of all the rights accorded children globally, nationally or internationally. A child's right to safety, health and life is sacred. All our laws are aimed at protecting them. Our criminal code, our charters, our laws on child protection all have only one aim, which is to ensure that all children live in safety, free from exploitation and mistreatment. Regardless of sexual tourists' fine words, their degrading behaviour violates the fundamental rights of their victims. These tourists are intolerable; they are criminals.
This brings us to Bill C-27, which contains a provision making it easier to arrest and prosecute the clientele of children involved in prostitution in Canada and abroad.
This breaks new legal ground, because of the extraterritorial scope accorded the Criminal Code. With this new legislation, the authorities will now be able to prosecute Canadian nationals buying the sexual services of children abroad.
I am delighted by this government initiative. I am particularly happy because this is an area that concerns me a lot and that was the focus of a private member's bill I introduced in this House over a year ago. I was contacted after introducing it by organizations and people thanking me and encouraging me to continue to help protect defenceless children.
As a member of Parliament, I can only be happy to make a contribution, however modest it may be, to this cause untiringly fought for out there by many people who care about defending children and who, in some cases, put their own lives at risk. I thank
the Hon. Minister of Justice for recognizing the importance of legislating in this area.
I, however, have a few comments to make regarding the kind of action taken by the minister in this matter. I think that two important elements are missing from this bill. I am speaking of the impact of this bill in terms of quality and of the role it is playing in the commission of a crime. Let me explain.
First of all, Bill C-27 provides only for the prosecution of Canadian citizens and landed immigrants. I think this category is too narrow and I intend to propose, during committee consideration, that the minister expand the classes of people who can be prosecuted. I think it is important that any individual, regardless of his or her legal status in Canada, be subject to prosecution if he or she commits this crime. I think the bill is too restrictive in this regard.
Second, I think this bill must specifically target not only the customers but also all the people and companies directly or indirectly involved in this kind of sex tourism. The law should explicitly prohibit travel agencies and carriers from participating in or promoting this trade.
I think the culpability of promoters and carriers must be recognized since these people benefit from and promote sex tourism just to make money. This is another amendment we should consider.
I would now like to move on to the second part of Bill C-27, which deals with female genital mutilation. As in the case of sex tourism, I am pleased to note that the Minister of Justice has seen fit to take action to amend the Criminal Code for the purpose of naming and prohibiting the practice of female genital mutilation.
Both these practices deny children's right to personal security and, in some cases, their right to life. They are therefore very important. In September 1994, I introduced at first reading a bill that would prohibit the practice of female genital mutilation and provide for the prosecution of those involved. That bill is now at the committee stage.
My bill attracted the attention of many people and organizations in both Quebec and Canada. I noticed how seriously groups dealing with health and social issues, groups involved in putting an end to violence against women got together to examine the situation and try to remedy it.
As in the case of child sex tourism, there is a consensus not only internationally, but also nationally and locally, around the fact that genital mutilation should be eradicated. Mutilation violates women's right to life and security of the person and, as such, cannot be tolerated.
I spoke at length about this subject in the House. Now the time has come to stop talking and start acting. Once a consensus has been achieved, we must look at what can be done.
I also noted, much to my relief, the climate of respect and sensitivity in which the debates on this subject take place. Every conversation I have had, every discussion meeting I have attended and every study I have read have all been stamped with profound respect for the person, whether the victim or those close to them. The consensus is that this practice must end, but the means developed to achieve this goal show great respect for those concerned.
For instance, there is much talk about educating affected communities and about the difference between respecting a cultural practice and respecting basic human rights. I think we are on the right track and I am convinced that it is not by denigrating individuals that we will succeed in getting them to give up certain practices.
Having said that, even if education and information are the basic tools of the fight against genital mutilation, the fact remains that penalties must be provided for in the legislation for those who knowingly carry on a practice violating human rights. In that sense, the minister's initiative addresses my concerns and those of every person concerned about mutilation.
I commend this initiative, even though, as I said, it has its flaws. Before looking at these flaws, I must insist on the importance of having a common goal. I know that we all have the same goal, which will ensure that the best possible legislation will be passed.
As for the flaws of this legislation, I want to say a word on the approach used by the minister to prohibit female genital mutilation. Contrary to my bill, which established a new offence, Bill C-27 merely points out that female genital mutilation is a form of aggravated assault.
In other words, the bill only makes the definition more clear. This way of doing things will not enable us to reach our objective. Through readings and conversations, I have learned that members of the communities still practising genital mutilation are not at all aware of the fact that they are actually taking part in a form of aggravated assault. In fact, most of these people would take exception to such a view.
Therefore, since these people feel the operation is merely a cultural practice, in fact a necessary one, it should be dissociated from the usual notion of aggravated assault. The Criminal Code must include a provision dealing exclusively with female genital mutilation, to make people aware of the fact that this specific practice is illegal.
There is another flaw in Bill C-27 regarding the persons associated with this practice. Indeed, the prohibition only applies
to those actually performing the surgical procedure. This is an essential first step. However, as I said on numerous occasions, it is also important, if we are to reach our goal of eradicating this practice, that all those involved be sued, whether it is a family member giving the authorization, a person looking after the travel arrangements of the victim to the country of origin, or of the midwife to Canada, or a person who, for example, puts parents in contact with someone prepared to perform the operation.
Why charge everyone involved? Because this is a cultural practice, it is of primary importance for concerned members of the community to feel answerable to the law. In order to eradicate a practice, all those involved must be made to feel responsible. They must be made to know that, like any other act that is deemed to be criminal, any form of participation in the commission of that act is punishable. Thus, if each individual involved is aware that his role contributes to the commission of a criminal act, the chance of the operation being done successfully are reduced accordingly.
If one link in the chain is missing, the chain is likely to be broken, and that is what we want. We want to see the chain broken so that the physical integrity of women and young girls is respected.
Since, by definition, genital mutilation require a very young victim, obviously a person in authority must give authorization. It is said that some six million women yearly undergo excision. Obviously, the person who does this must be recruited by someone. It also seems that, in many cases, the child is taken out of the country to undergo the operation.
She does not get there alone. If one of the people involved did not fulfil his or her role, the operation would not take place. It is important, therefore, to include in a legal text that these persons are committing a criminal act by playing their role in it. It is important that they know that they will be punished. The practice will be ended if all of the bases are covered.
As well, since we know that the operation on Canadian nationals is often carried out outside the country, I am suggesting that the minister do as he has done in the case of child sex tourism and include extraterritoriality in the section pertaining to female genital mutilation. This would allow Canadian prosecution of persons taking a child abroad or organizing such a trip for the purpose of this operation. This extraterritoriality would make it possible to stop people from continuing to work around the law and would protect the children more effectively, which is, I say again, the purpose of the bill.
Third, I would like to again question the exception for supposedly "necessary" surgical procedures. Discussions I have had with a representative of Canada's obstetricians and gynaecologists and the positions taken by physicians' associations have convinced me that there is absolutely no need for such an exception and that, in fact, its effect might be the opposite of that intended by the law.
In fact, I wonder whether such an exception might not lead to operations on the grounds they are necessary for a woman's health. From the information I received, physicians do not need legislation to know when a medical intervention is necessary. As they do not consider female genital mutilation a medical intervention, there is no need for its mention in the text of a law. I consider therefore that this exception should be eliminated.
Finally, I would like to debate the possibility provided in Bill C-27 of an adult's consenting to a form of genital mutilation. I reject this possibility as strongly as I possibly can, because it runs completely counter to the intended objective, which is eradicating female genital mutilation.
In the name of what principle exactly can the text of a law provide that an individual may consent to being mutilated? How do we expect to put an end to a centuries old cultural practice widely followed in certain cultures by permitting its being done to adults? How can we lose sight of the fact that family and social pressure may force women to agree to the operation when they reach age 18, the age of majority?
I cannot accept our protecting women before they reach the age of majority and subsequently leaving them unprotected. Female genital mutilation, like the sexual exploitation of children, must be stopped. I will be happy to co-operate with the Minister of Justice to come up with the best possible legislation on these two aspects of the government bill.
As the House knows, Bill C-27 addresses other key issues in protecting women and children. I would like to take a quick look at them, although I expect some of my colleagues to do a more in-depth analysis. Criminal harassment is a relatively recent offence in the history of our criminal law. In fact, it was only in 1991 that the government finally bowed to the arguments made by women, who had for a long time demanded protection against criminal harassment.
Criminal harassment is an insidious form of violence against women. It shows the possessive jealously some men feel toward their wives. This feeling causes them to take some very specific actions against their victims such as spying on everything they do, making threats and trying to intimidate them.
A criminal harassment victim is not free and never feels safe. Her whole life and that of other people around her is affected to a significant degree by the harasser's behaviour and the fears it arouses.
Apparently, women have not won this battle yet, given the judicial system's anemic response to the 1991 legislative initiative. That is why we now find in Bill C-27 a new provision that would give some teeth to those already in place. We agree.
The effort to eliminate violence against women must be taken seriously by all stakeholders, be they police officers, Crown prosecutors or judges. How many women killed by their former husbands were harassed by them long before and right until they died? How many women fruitlessly appealed for help until it was too late?
The Bloc Quebecois strongly supports any measure to protect the lives of women and save them from the most pernicious kind of violence, the kind perpetrated by a spouse or former spouse.
Bill C-27 also addresses another crime: child prostitution. More adults exploiting children for sexual purposes or for the purpose of gain. In fact, what pimps are doing with their victims is a form of modern-day slavery which is, still today, condemned by the International Labour Office. Data issued by the office show that tens of millions of children have been enslaved, and a great many of them in the sex industry. That is what the papers were reporting this morning.
As we know, often pimps do not only exploit their victims, they also abuse them. It is a hellish situation young prostitutes. both boys and girls, have the greatest difficulty getting out of. Those who succeed need years to piece their lives back together.
Léon Bernier and Jean Trépanier, two Quebec researchers who looked into the issue of juvenile prostitution, have compiled a list of problems related to prostitution. This list includes sexually transmitted diseases, emotional disturbances and socio-affective disorders, violence, delinquency and drug use.
The Bloc Quebecois agrees with imposing stiffer sentences on pimps who use violence and live off the proceeds of the exploitation of youngsters.
As far as the provision on agents provocateurs is concerned, however, we think perhaps further consideration is required, in the context where it may not necessarily be the role of the state to trip up individual citizens. We therefore urge the minister to think this over.
Finally, I would like to assure the justice minister of the Bloc Quebecois' support for those provisions that will help young prostitutes come out and testify against their pimps. By allowing special measures to extend to the testimony of young victims of violence or procuring as well as of witnesses under the age of 18 in such matters, the government is seeking to reduce procuring through the conviction of those who commit a crime which, in my sense, is the most blameworthy of all crimes: child abuse.
Any society that respects itself and wishes to survive protects its children. We will support any measure geared to achieving this objective while not violating basic human rights.
