Madam Speaker, it is with respect that I rise to speak to Bill C-277 presented by my colleague for Quebec.
I will read the bill as she has presented it to bring the impact once again of the horrible mutilation to the public view. The amendment will include:
A person who
(a) excises or otherwise mutilates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a female person; or
(b) aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance by another person of any of the acts described in paragraph (a),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
In 1992 the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons expressed concern over a rise in the number of requests for infibulations, which is the cutting off a young girl's genital parts including the clitoris and the subsequent sewing together of the opening leaving room for only urination and menstruation. We are addressing the issue today because the increase is reason for concern.
Canada has been cited by the World Health Organization as being one of 40 countries involved in the practice of what has euphemistically become known as female circumcision but is more correctly referred to as female genital mutilation or FGM.
FGM causes any number of both short and long term problems including excruciating pain; hemorrhaging; occasional death; exceptionally high rates of infections to the urinary tract, bladder, reproductive organs and bowel; menstrual and pregnancy problems; anaemia and disfiguring cysts which not only reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure but often result in extreme pain during intercourse and can even prohibit it.
Unlike male circumcision there is no dispute within the medical community as to the benefits versus the harm of female genital mutilation. The medical community judges FGM to have no benefits and is harmful in many ways with both the short and long term implications already cited.
Charles Kyazze, head of Ottawa's African Resource Centre, believes that FGM is being performed primarily by members of African communities where it is accepted and perpetuated as a legitimate cultural practice. It is also being performed in hospitals by doctors who argue that if they were not performing the procedure in a controlled environment, the child would be exposed to a much higher risk of infection and would suffer much more pain during and after the procedure. In some cases, Kyazze says, families are sending their children to Africa for the procedure.
That Canada has been recognized as a state in which this procedure is practised, in private homes as well as in hospitals, validates our argument to codify female genital mutilation in Canadian legislation.
Christine Hodges cited recently in the Globe and Mail the story of a Chadean woman who, reluctant to have her daughter suffer the procedure and despite pressures from her mother and grandmother to have it done, had decided not to have the procedure performed on her children. However, because her daughters became so distraught and unhappy at being singled out as different because they were the only women in their cultural community not to be so altered, she agreed.
She chose the least mutilating of the procedures which would not carry with it the high risk of infection and would not result in the inability to have normal pleasurable intercourse. Despite her western ideas about the procedure, she recognized that her daughters had to live in this cultural context, remaining supported by the community and sharing many of the same beliefs. As appalled as Ms. Hodges was at the idea and action of FGM, she had a better understanding of the motivation behind it as it was presented within the context of the community in which it was practised.
The point of this story is not that culture and ideas of what is right and wrong are relative but that within their own context cultural practices can be understood, tolerated and at times respected and admired. We certainly have no power as a nation to impose our own ideas and beliefs on other nations. We may voice our displeasure, concern or even contempt but we cannot expect another nation to abide by our laws and practices on their own soil any more than someone coming from another nation should expect to impose their laws and practices on Canadian soil.
When a cultural action is taken from its original context and placed in our own, it is therefore our obligation to examine it and rightly judge whether it conforms to Canadian social and cultural norms.
I may not wish to judge FGM as an action that is inappropriate in Africa, but I do condemn it as an action that is inappropriate within the context of Canadian culture. With that in mind I would like to pose the following questions with regard to not only this particular bill but how we address and judge the cultural practices of residents and citizens coming from countries with sometimes different and even conflicting beliefs and ideas.
Where do we draw the line on how much of each culture we are willing to promote? What criteria do we use to judge the appropriateness of an action of an ethnic group? If we are not able to use our own cultural and state criteria then how do we justify prosecuting some men who claim that physical abuse of their wives is a cultural thing? It is one thing to allow people to promote their own cultures, but at what cost? Do we compromise what we as Canadians hold to be worth preserving and maintaining in the name of cultural diversity and cultural tolerance?
Canadian laws and values should not be so cheap that we are willing to make compromises for the sake of not offending the sensibilities of others. That should not simply be with regard to female genital mutilation but with regard to any cultural practice that contradicts Canadian laws as well as social and civil practices.
In answer to the above questions I suggest the following: that the only criteria which we as Canadians can use with regard to the judgment of an act are the common beliefs and laws of our land. If this were not the case we should be willing to tolerate all cultural practices from FGM to the cutting off of someone's hand when he or she is caught stealing or the physical abuse of women and children because it is culturally accepted elsewhere.
One might wish to argue at this point that clearly the above acts are either directly or indirectly in violation of our laws and cannot be permissible; therefore, the point is moot. I would suggest, however, that it is inconsistent to fund and encourage some cultural practices while criminalizing others. What we are saying to new Canadians is: "We encourage you to continue to live according to the standards and beliefs of your country of origin, but only those that we find palatable".
A Somali family may wish to have its daughter's genitalia removed because in its culture such a practice meets religious standards or preserves a sense of identity to their community or it is believed to help maintain cleanliness and health or it is believed to preserve virginity and family honour and prevent immorality.
As Canadians do we support such views? I suggest we do not. If we continue to advance the current multicultural policies that we do, we are facilitating a platform from which practices such as FGM can be justified.
I am not trying to imply that we prevent people from promoting their culture of origin privately. It is important in life to have continuity, to know where you are from and who and what has been instrumental in shaping the person that you are and will become.
By making the promotion of foreign cultures a matter of public policy, we are essentially saying that although we have values that are Canadian they do not need to be embraced by those immigrating to Canada as they already have cultural and moral framework that we encourage they uphold.
I wish to applaud the hon. member for coming forward with the proposed bill. I applaud her not only for what the bill means for the women who are subject to what I believe to be an inhuman act but also for the implicit statement it makes about Canada's values and beliefs.
As Canadians we must be clear in our condemnation of a practice that is so mutilating. We cannot continue to stand by as the international community perceives us as a nation which tolerates such abuse.
Finally, the Reform Party suggests that the current bill as proposed does not go far enough in its condemnation of the act. We recommend amending the bill at committee in the following manner, that Bill C-277 become an addition to section 267, rather than of section 244, of the Criminal Code. The bill would then read:
Bill C-277 is amended by adding the following after section 267:
267.1 A person who
(a) excises or otherwise mutilates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a female person; or
(b) aids, abets, counsels or procures the performance by another person of any of the acts described in paragraph (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
The hon. member put forward five years. As it stands the bill will codify the act of female genital mutilation as an offence carrying a lesser charge that it might currently carry not codified. Presently a person performing the procedure in Canada could be charged under sections 267 or 268, assault causing bodily harm, but there is no codification.
I thank my hon. colleague from Quebec for having brought forward this most important piece of legislation.
