Status of Women Committee on April 23rd, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Now we go to Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Demers, I do believe the girl was not excommunicated. According to canon law, the girl was never excommunicated and she cannot be excommunicated because of her age. I think that is still one of the issues we need to look at. And we need to get facts and obviously not look at the press, because the press will have their own interpretation. We need to look at the actual facts. That's my one concern, that she never was actually excommunicated.

My other concern is that I don't believe the government has any right or any jurisdiction to comment on religious practices. I think we have to be very careful.

But initially we need to make sure that our facts are correct, and she was not excommunicated.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, this is why I referred to canon law and not just to newspaper articles. Canon law is drafted and enacted by the Vatican. This is not a matter of religion but of human rights. This young girl had the right to have an abortion. If we start allowing the Catholic Church to remove the rights of nine-year-old girls when they are raped by their stepfather, we will be seriously distancing ourselves from reality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Just for information, if you recall when Madame Demers first brought the motion forward, it was postponed--for want of a better word--until she sent us information. And she sent us this information, which is basically canon law rules regarding abortion. This was sent and then Ms. Demers brought back an amended motion of her own to deal with this, and that's what we're speaking to today.

Is anyone else wanting to speak to this issue?

Shelly Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I thank you for recognizing me, because I believe I was after Ms. Hoeppner in the order that was being followed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry. I allowed Madame Demers to clarify something that Ms. Hoeppner had said.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Very good, thank you.

In any event, I'm pleased to speak to this, because of course, if you don't realize, I am a Catholic woman and I'm very distressed by this motion. Never before have I seen a motion coming to a conclusion with regard to a religious group when the questions have not been asked yet. We're asking to move forward and do something without having the facts about whether or not what you're assuming is true.

The information I have is that we have said clearly as Catholics and officials have said very clearly that she was not excommunicated, nor is she under any threat to be excommunicated. So the motion is putting the cart before the horse and making assumptions. Second, this is religion, this is not federal law, and it's inappropriate for us to be involved in those decisions.

The other point I would like to make with regard to the motion is I'm very surprised, Madame Demers--and I mean no insult or no hard feelings between us, and I want to take partisanship out of it--that the Bloc Québécois voted yesterday to not protect our children and our women here in Canada. I'm just a little surprised to see you bring this forward and not acknowledge that we need to protect our Canadian women and children with the human trafficking issue. But I would like you to take that just as a comment, and not as a....

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. O'Neill-Gordon.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

I too as a Catholic and as an MP feel very adamant about this motion, and I don't think we should be voting in favour of this. It's something we should stay away from until we have more information and we know what the real facts are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any further debate on this?

Ms. Mathyssen.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Chair, I've been looking at the canon law rules, and I don't see the reference that Ms. Hoeppner is making with regard to age. I'm wondering where that is.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I'll find that and I'll clarify that for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Even if you have a copy of it.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

I don't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Have you an extra copy so Ms. Hoeppner can be able to look at that? Thank you.

If anyone received a copy in which this is referred to.... I think the person moving the motion can bring forward clarification, but if you wish to speak a little later on, we can allow you to. It's only the mover who can clarify things. In your turn, you can clarify when you have it.

Ms. Matthyssen, perhaps we would let Ms. Hoeppner look at this and consult and come back with her clarification in a few minutes.

Ms. Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Chair, I'm speaking to the need for more information. We're clearly getting two very different perspectives on what the situation is, and I think before we proceed any further we have to know what the reality is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have Madame Demers. Is it for clarification, Madame Demers?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I wish to respond to Ms. Glover.

Ms. Glover's premise that we voted against a bill because we are against women and children is quite a statement. We voted against the bill because current law already includes measures aimed at the holding of women and children against their will and, more particularly, because judges are allowed to ask for denunciatory sentences.

Ms. Smith's bill did not ask for denunciatory sentences. In Quebec, we are opposed to minimum sentences, and all of the women's groups I have spoken with have said that they are in complete agreement with the Bloc Québécois' decision.

I would therefore request of Ms. Glover that she not make accusations with regard to the way in which we deal with bills, nor purport that we are against women and children because we decided to vote against a bill. I find that quite low. She could have asked for explanations before making such claims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Before Ms. Hoeppner speaks, I just want to clarify something. Unless we get agreement from the committee to allow Ms. Glover to participate.... We have not yet received the sheet that suggests Ms. Glover is a substitute. So in the absence of that, while we wait for that, there should be an agreement by everyone here that Ms. Glover participate. Do I have that agreement? Good.

So everyone is in agreement that you can. Hopefully, we'll get those sheets.

Ms. Hoeppner.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

The canon law that I referenced is “Book VI, Sanctions in the Church, Part I, Offences and Punishments in General”. It begins: “The Church has its own inherent right to constrain with penal sanctions Christ's faithful who commit offences.” If you go down to canon 1323, “No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: (1) has not completed the sixteenth year of age...”.

That was where I received that information from. This girl is nine years old.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Glover, do you wish to respond with regard to the canon law piece?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I think Ms. Hoeppner has answered it appropriately. It's just that because I'm Catholic, I knew the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on this motion?

Ms. Neville, do you wish to speak?