[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 2, 1996
.0938 
[English]
The Chair: Order, please.
I would like to welcome you, Madame Gagnon, and just say by way of introduction that you are part of a new process that we have put in place with respect to private members' bills on this committee. Basically, it was the concern of some of our members that private members' business could get shoved aside if we weren't vigilant in bringing it forward regularly.
Your private member's bill was the only one for which we hadn't had the member come to introduce what it is that you hope to accomplish. We will consider, both in our steering committee and as a full committee, where we're going to place it in the order of precedence, but we wanted to hear from you first in order to get your bill up to the same procedural level as all of the others we have before us.
We'll follow our usual format. We'd like to hear your brief, and I'm sure members will then have questions.
We have an hour and a half, but I think we're going to be disrupted for a vote. I heard there may be a vote this morning on time allocation.
.0940
It has been cancelled. So we have until about 11 a.m.
[Translation]
Ms Christiane Gagnon, MP (Québec): Madam Chair, honourable members, I thank you for granting me this privilege, after waiting for a very long time, to defend my bill on genital mutilation.
This bill, which I first tabled in the House of Commons on September 29, 1994, has won the support of many individuals and groups from all parts of Quebec and Canada.
I would like to begin by talking to you about what motivated me to have drafted and to table a bill on such a complex and emotionally charged subject as female genital mutilation.
In 1987, I took several months off to travel and among the places I visited were some of the countries of the Middle East. I was enthralled by the mysteries and splendours of another civilization. It was a marvellous opportunity to learn something about, and to learn to appreciate, cultures so very different from my own and so fascinating.
Shortly after I returned home to Quebec, I started reading newspaper articles and seeing news stories on the practice of female genital mutilation. My initial reaction was shock and dismay. How could I reconcile the beautiful memories of my trip with the horrible reality experienced by women in some of those countries?
Then I felt immense compassion for the victims of these practices, and a certain anger, I will say, towards the people responsible for their suffering, both physical and psychological. I especially asked myself in the name of what tradition could anyone inflict such abuse on other human beings.
It was when I learned that young girls, young women, living right here in Quebec and Canada, were undergoing these mutilations that I started to want to do something, to fight. My election to the House of Commons gave me the means to take action,and I'm very glad.
I want to make clear at the start that genital mutilation is a practice that currently affects 100 million women, mainly in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Every year, an average of 2 million new victims are added. There are 3 types of mutilation, sometimes wrongly called "female circumcision". You will understand why this expression is inaccurate when I describe them to you.
The first type is known as "sunna" circumcision: the tip of the prepuce of the clitoris is cut off. The second type is known as "intermediate" circumcision. The clitoris is completely sliced off, the labia majora and minora are completely or partially cut away, and the genitals are stitched shut except for a small opening to allow urine and menstrual blood to escape. The third type is infibulation, which is the same as intermediate circumcision except that the stitching of the vaginal opening is done with a product that is supposed to make the cut flesh grow together permanently.
Depending on the country, the operation is done by a barber, a midwife or a health professional. In men, the equivalent would be the complete amputation of the glans. That's why I've maintained that female circumcision is not in fact circumcision; it is a much more serious procedure that has many more consequences.
It is obvious from the technical description of these operations that they cannot fail to have serious consequences on the women who undergo them. Here are some of the consequences: hemorrhages, infections, obstetrical complications, vesicle-vaginal or rectal-vaginal fistulas, cysts, severe pain, damaged sexual response, psychological disturbances, death.
To this long list of consequences must be added the problems specific to women who immigrate here after undergoing one of the forms of excision. They find themselves in a culture where they are different. This can cause problems in their social and romantic relationships, and even in the relations with the doctor if he or she is not sensitized to the problem.
A social worker among immigrant women has reported that many mutilated fiances and wives have been abandoned by their partner once he has had sexual relations with a non excised woman.
.0945
Imagine the double anguish of these women - first mutilated because their traditional and family milieu expects it of them, and then abandoned because they have been mutilated.
There are as many different arguments invoked to justify this tradition as there are regions of the world in which it survives. While some of these arguments are more esoteric than others, they are all erroneous from an objective point of view. I shall mention some of the most vivid arguments, without comment. For example, it is thought that:
- - childbearing is easier for a women whose genitals have been excised;
- - a woman's genitals produce ill-smelling, unhygienic secretions;
- - genital excision is a criterion of beauty; male circumcision is practiced for these reasons, and
therefore women must undergo an operation similar to that practiced on males;
- - the clitoris has the power to kill the first born child, particularly if the baby's head touches the
clitoris during birth;
- - genital mutilation is essential to the social and political cohesion of the community; it is an
absolute pre-requisite for participation in community life and in the exercise of civic and
democratic rights;
- - a woman whose clitoris is intact becomes a nymphomaniac;
- - the clitoris provokes over-excitation in the man, which causes premature ejaculation;
- - genital excision guarantees virginity;
- - women's genital secretions kill sperms.
In 1992 alone, Canada welcomed 3,245 new arrivals from countries in which genital mutilation is practiced. From 1986 to 1991, 40,000 of these people immigrated to Canada. Thus there is a strong probability that this problem has been imported. This probability is supported by testimony that genital mutilation is regularly practiced on girls.
In recent years, health professionals and workers in some cultural communities have confirmed this. Because the practice is taboo here, it is difficult to determine how widespread it is. However, physicians have stated that they have been asked by parents to perform genital mutilation on their daughters. Other physicians have had to perform surgery in order to repair the damage caused to girls by genital mutilation. Social workers have been in contact with victims or relative of victims who have made them aware of this practice.
For example, after a Somalian woman was granted refugee status in May 1994, Charles Kyazze, Director of Ottawa's African Resource Centre, stated that many immigrants from African countries found ways of having genital mutilation performed on their daughters in Canada, despite a directive from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario opposing this practice. Mr. Kyazze also stated that families sent their daughters abroad for genital mutilation, and that he knew that a number of Canadian physicians had been asked to perform it. He added that, at present, the fears expressed by the Somalian woman applying for refugee status were justified, because the African community checks whether girls have been operated on.
The problem is therefore quite real, even though it is difficult to quantify. However, some will say that just because a problem exists, it does not necessarily follow that we need to pass specific legislation to address it. I argue that we do need to legislate. Here are my reasons.
Firstly, as I am sure you will agree, genital mutilation is unacceptable for many reasons: medical, social, psychological and legal. We must therefore take steps to eliminate this practice, at least in Canada and Quebec. All international organizations have condemned this practice, and all international women's conferences have expressed the importance of eliminating it.
.0950
Furthermore, Canada is a signatory to the international conventions on female genital mutilation and has endorsed all the related resolutions made at international conferences. Canada must therefore act accordingly and ensure that genital mutilation is not practiced in Canada or by Canadians.
Lastly, I want to point out that even if, as the minister of Justice has argued, the present provisions of the Criminal Code would in themselves be an adequate basis for prosecution, no prosecutions have yet been brought in Canada.
Since there are indications that genital mutilation is indeed practiced in Canada, we can conclude that police officers and Crown prosecutors are no better informed that physicians are about the legal status of genital mutilation.
Thus we can anticipate that a specific provision prohibiting this practice would have the advantage of encouraging prosecutions, clarifying the law for persons who interpret it, such as judges, informing at-risk populations and people who work with them, encouraging physicians to report to the authorities cases they witness, and eventually reducing the number of genital mutilations performed.
A further, appreciable advantage is that legislation would unequivocally indicate public censure of this practice. Several countries have already enacted legislation: France, Egypt, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Holland and Belgium. You will note that most of these countries welcome immigrants from countries where this custom persists. Having observed that there was a problem, they acted. That is what I propose we do as well. All the parties involved in this issue agree and all the evidence points to the fact that the government must take action on a number of fronts.
In addition to legal and legislative action, the government must act to educate people who belong to the target cultural groups, to provide information to health care providers, social services, police forces and judicial officials, Crown attorneys or judges, to train an information officers - in short anyone who is directly or indirectly concerned by female genital mutilation must be informed of its consequences, our society's attitude toward it, and the law.
I believe that a formal prohibition set out in a straightforward text is the best possible educational tool. Moreover, the government could seize the opportunity provided by the passage of this bill to launch a public awareness and information campaign about the nature of this issue and the new legislation.
A number of groups, agencies and individuals support the principle of specific legislation. I would like to mention just a few of the most important: the Canadian Council for Refugees, the now defunct National Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Conseil des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, FTQ-CTQ, the Conseil du statut de la femme, the Centre de documentation sur la recherche féministe, the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, the many women's centres in Quebec, Quest for the Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation, the Ukrainian-Canadian Association for Human Rights, the Cercle des fermières du Québec, the Réseau des femmes noires francophones de Toronto, the Centre d'éducation et d'action des femmes de Montréal, the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, Family Care International, the Quebec Ministry of Justice, the Multicultural Council of Professional Women, the Service d'information en contraception et sexualité de Québec, and the Syndicat professionnel des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec.
My bill has the two-fold purpose of deterrence and protection: to deter the various parties and to protect the innocent victims. The bill has two components, therefore: criminalization of the act itself in subsection 244.2, paragraph (a) and the punishment of any person associated with the operation in paragraph (b).
This bill thus has the scope required for action to be taken against all those involved, and this is essential if it is to reach its ultimate goal: eradication of the practice of female genital mutilation.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
.0955
Ten-minute rounds. Madame Venne.
[Translation]
Ms Venne (Saint-Hubert): Thank you for your presentation, Ms Gagnon.
We are currently examining various bills, including your own. You did not refer to this, but a bill from the Minister of Justice currently before us also deals with genital mutilation. I would like you to discuss the difference between your bill and the minister's, since we will have to consider them both here at the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I note that in paragraph (b), you mention that any persons who aids, abets or councils or procures the performance of genital mutilation should be prosecuted under the same charge. Here I would like to point out that section 21 of the Criminal Code states that those who aid and abet in the commission of a crime are as guilty as the person who commits the crime. What will paragraph (b) add to what we already have in the Criminal Code?
Ms Gagnon: My bill is different from that of the Minister of Justice. The minister's bill does not provide for paragraph 244.2b), which states that a person who:
(b) aids, abets, councils or procures the performance by another person of any of the acts described in paragraph (a)
is liable to imprisonment for five years.
We're well aware that the person who practices genital mutilation is guilty, but often, many people contribute to the act. The minister's bill does not specify that the people who contribute indirectly to the act are as guilty as those who practice mutilation.
Ms Venne: What would you answer the minister, who tells us that the Criminal Code already contains a clause dealing with aiding and abetting which would be amply sufficient? We will have to respond to the minister's arguments.
Ms Gagnon: Personally, I would tell him that the purpose of this bill and this provision is to send a very clear message to the cultural communities. The cultural communities would better understand this if genital mutilation was defined very explicitly and linked to a clearly defined clause in legislation. This provision specifies that persons who aid and abet mutilation will be prosecuted.
Moreover, many stakeholders have told us that we had to communicate a clear message to the cultural communities by launching a major awareness campaign together with this legislation so that they can interpret it correctly.
Ms Venne: The minister's bill makes an exception for surgical procedures performed by persons who are licenced to practice medicine. You did not mention this exception in your bill. Don't you think it would be important to add such an amendment?
.1000
Ms Gagnon: It's already included in the legislation, but I know that the link between an operation and mutilation is not evident, at least for the person practicing it. It may indeed be a good idea to add that.
Ms Venne: Your bill creates a new offense whereas in the minister's bill, it is understood that excision, infibulation, etc. constitute injury or mutilation. Therefore only the word "mutilation" is excluded since it is in the Criminal Code. It specifies the offense whereas you are creating a new one.
I would like to know why you are creating a new offense. The minister's approach is different.
Ms Gagnon: Because I believe that the best way to send a clear message is to be very specific in a provision of the law and to define and use the words "genital mutilation". People who practice genital mutilation do not have an intent to mutilate. They do not feel guilty of assault. If we specify very explicitly that this is an offense, the message will be much clearer and more detailed and people will understand the law better.
Does that answer your question?
Ms Venne: Not completely, but that's all right.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Ramsay, ten minutes.
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your presentation.
Your bill does not establish an age requirement. Bill C-27 does, and that age is 18. The government bill, C-27, indicates in proposed subsection 268(4) that:
- (4) For the purposes of this section and section 265, no consent to the excision...in whole or in
part...of a young person under the age of eighteen years is valid, whether the consent is given by
that young person or...[not].
- So it doesn't matter whether a doctor gets consent from a person under the age of 18; it is still an
offence.
Do you feel there should be an age limit? The government bill would allow this kind of an operation to be performed on a 19-year-old. Yours would prevent it. How do you feel about that?
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: Personally, I don't think there should be any age limit. This is an attack on the physical integrity of women. We must defend all women throughout their lives, from birth to death.
We cannot tolerate that a person over 18 be a victim of her country's culture. It's an intolerable practice. For my part, I could not agree that this practice be tolerated for women over 18 when it is criminalized in the case of persons under 18. No, I don't see a distinction.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I think it deals with a matter of consent; the right of an adult person to undergo this kind of operation with their consent. Do you feel this kind of an operation should be prohibited for someone who is of age - 30, 40; whatever age - with their consent?
.1005
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: In my view it should be prohibited even if there is consent. Such a practice is criminal.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: Okay.
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: It is my bill and I'm convinced that this practice should be prohibited for all women. Women are often victims of customs and culture. We must put an end to these customs.
Genital mutilation is very much influenced by culture and an education program is required to eradicate such customs and beliefs.
There are some people in the community who claim that such mutilation is required by Islam or to show respect to patriarchy. All sorts of reasons can be given.
Very often it's just a matter of keeping up a custom. The Quebec Association of Women's Health Centres had a meeting with the women from the communities concerned. When it was explained to them that these beliefs should be done away with and when they are made aware of the repercussions that such practices can have on their psychological well-being and health, their perception of the matter changes.
They're the victims of cultural values and customs that their societies wish to perpetuate. We know that a shift in thinking is taking place in these societies and they must be made aware of such things.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I have some difficulty with that reasoning, although I understand it. When we apply that same reasoning to other rights of human beings in Canada, including the right of abortion, we find we're getting into an area where the government is telling an adult they cannot have something done to them with their consent. I have a bit of a problem with that. Anyway, you have explained your reasoning behind that, and I thank you for that.
The other question I'd like to ask you about is this. Would you agree to an amendment to your bill to increase the term of imprisonment from five to ten years? My reasoning for that is that under your bill the courts of course would always have the discretion to impose any kind of a sentence from one to five, or from the minimum to the maximum, which I would like to see as ten. They would have that discretion. They may not go beyond the five at any time, but the fact that we say the maximum penalty for this kind of act is ten years I think would be...if there is such a thing as deterrence in punishment, this would deter doctors and other people from counselling, aiding, abetting, or procuring this kind of performance on another person.
Hence my question to you. Would you entertain the possibility of an amendment to your bill that would raise the term of imprisonment from five to ten years?
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: At the present time I would not entertain such an amendment but I could give some thought to it.
The Criminal Code does have a section on mutilation. I don't think I'd like to make such an amendment to my bill.
.1010
It's already hard enough to get a bill like this adopted and it seems to me that five years... If the person were to die as a result of this genital mutilation... It would all depend on the consequences. There are a number of provisions in the bill dealing with this.
It all depends on the consequences. If the victim of such mutilation died or there were very serious consequences, the perpetrator of the act could be convicted under certain statutory provisions that already exist. That's why I would hesitate to make such an amendment to my bill.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I support your bill, and if the bill reaches the House for third reading I'm sure I and the entire membership of my caucus will support your bill. There may be amendments we would offer, including an increase in the maximum penalty. Whether or not the courts want to impose it is a different thing. Here you're signalling to Canadians that this will not be tolerated, and if they ignore this prohibition, the penalty is five years. I think it would be a stronger message if the maximum penalty were ten years. That's the only point I would make in that regard.
Other than that, I have some concern about the consent after you get beyond.... I have some concern about the government's bill, about limiting it to 18 years of age. It seems to offer an opening to proceed with this procedure with consent from someone who is above 18 years of age, and I have some real concerns about that, because in some cultures there's not much difference between 18 years of age and 18 and a half or 19 and so on. So I have some real concerns about that. But we'll deal with that when we get the justice minister before this committee, dealing with Bill C-27.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I should draw to Mr. Ramsay's attention that the government bill would consider this aggravated assault, at which point the maximum penalty is 14 years.
About your bill specifically, first of all, obviously I'm totally on-side with the intention of your bill. I have some concerns about the process in the whole aiding and abetting clause. As you've already said, it's already in the current Criminal Code. Your intention is to repeat it closer to this particular offence, I gather. I believe you said you want to do that because you want to clarify very specifically to people who are involved in this practice that it's not acceptable.
Obviously we're not going to be issuing copies of the Criminal Code to all these various communities; we're going to be issuing some other information. Is it not possible we could use the current sections of the law, which already exist, and link them with this new offence in the communications package, since we really aren't going to be issuing copies of the Criminal Code and saying, oh, look, they're pushed together now, and now it's really serious? We could achieve the same objective without making the Criminal Code repetitive.
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: I don't see why we shouldn't repeat it. In any case, I intend to repeat what I already said. The provision specifies what exactly is to be considered as genital mutilation. I don't see why it should not be repeated. It's far more explicit. My bill does not only apply to those who perform this type of act, but also to anyone who encourages or arranges for the commission of such an offense. So I do not see why it should not be repeated and specified.
[English]
Ms Torsney: I believe you were at the meeting the minister held in August last year. We had some pretty terrific communications materials, I think done in Ontario, specifically for teachers, specifically for physicians. They had a lot of information.
.1015
Do you think this would go a long way toward getting those kinds of materials into more people's hands, including perhaps doing one specifically for lawyers and judges and police officers across the country - that this might in fact be almost more important than this legislation?
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: It's an important aspect. I think that a bill should be backed by a public awareness campaign. As a matter of fact, the Quebec Women's Association did consult various organizations in Canada and Quebec and has about 30 representatives from these cultural communities.
The purpose of the bill is to convey a clear message to all those involved, including judges. When immigrants choose to settle in a country like Canada or Quebec, they come here with their customs and culture. Some of these customs are not acceptable. Will we just give up and say that we respect their customs and their culture when the physical integrity of women and children are at stake?
We must remember that a public awareness campaign is required to support this bill. We have to help communities change their beliefs and their attitudes.
[English]
Ms Torsney: I remember that in the Ontario one the specific one to teachers was actually very helpful as well, trying to understand why girls of a certain age might be.... If I remember correctly, the materials focused on things such as why they are having attention problems all of a sudden, or things to watch for that would help you approach the child, and very helpful words in order to make it less threatening for the child to talk about it. Then you can get them help.
The problem is that even if there's a law people don't understand what their obligations are under it or the rest of us, who maybe are not associated with that culture, can't get in and direct them to the proper authorities. That doesn't really help, either.
Anyway, I congratulate you on your initiative and look forward to, in one way or another, making sure this will go through the House.
Mr. Ramsay: I would just like to get one other point on the record. I think it was covered fairly well by Madame Venne.
The government's bill makes an exemption for this kind of operation if it is for the purposes of benefiting the physical health of the person upon whom the operation is performed. Your bill does not provide that exemption.
Do you think an exemption is required for someone to have this kind of operation performed when it's in the best interests of the health of that person to have it performed, either in full or in part, of what is contained within the bill in terms of the operation?
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: Not at the present time, but I will think about it. I'm not against it but I would like to think about the consequences of including such a clarification in my bill.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: Has your research into this subject indicated that there's any justifiable reason? In other words, has this practice been ongoing in any parts of Canada where it is essential for the health and physical well-being of the patient? In other words, through this bill are we throwing a stumbling-block in the way of legitimate health and operational procedures?
.1020
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: No, not at all. This is not within the scope of the bill. Physicians are able to make a distinction between a necessary operation and genital mutilation. This is a very specific operation. I don't think that there can be any confusion if the purpose is to protect a woman's health.
Genital mutilation is a very specific type of operation that includes, among other things, the removal of the clitoris and the infubilation of the labia. So it is a very specific type of operation. That is why I would not be agreeable to such an exemption in the bill.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: I just point out that Bill C-27 does have that exemption. So maybe it's just a safeguard.
[Translation]
Ms Gagnon: The purpose of the bill is not to limit medical services for women. So I'll give the matter some thought to consider what the scope of such an exemption would be.
[English]
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Perhaps if we have witnesses we could have qualified witnesses appear who could testify to this.
I thank you very much.
The Chair: I was going to suggest, Mrs. Gagnon, that when you're ready we get a list of witnesses from you.
We have it. Then we're done. That's great.
Thank you very much. We will notify you when we have it in the schedule.
Mr. Ramsay: I hope it's early.
The Chair: I think we all do.
We're adjourned.