Status of Women Committee on April 23rd, 2009

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

It's on procedure.

Ms. Hoeppner has read material from the canon. I am not a Catholic; I can't begin to speak to the issue. Ms. Hoeppner has read one set of information to us. Ms. Demers has said something contrary. Is there a way of getting clarification?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I suppose we could, with the willingness of the mover of the motion, return with all the clarification we need and discuss this at another time. That is what you're asking, or hoping someone would suggest. At the same time, we have some people, like Ms. O'Neill-Gordon, who have suggested that because this is a religious law, a matter of religion, it should not be discussed.

I want us to come to a conclusion about where we wish to go with this motion, as a matter of process.

I am a Catholic, by the way. I spent many years almost wanting to be a nun at one point in time, but that was a long time ago. So I don't have the most up-to-date version of the canon law, which in fact continues to be changed according to different things. If you look at this, it says there have been some new pieces of the law and new code that distinguishes between the guilty party and the commission of the offence under the terms of legal rule.

If somebody has a newer version.... Is this the newest version?

What I think we're hearing from Ms. Neville is that she wishes to see further clarification of this law and further information as to whether it's true that the young woman has been excommunicated. Both Ms. Hoeppner and Ms. Glover have suggested that indeed the child has not been excommunicated. So we need to clarify (a) if the child has been excommunicated; and (b) the finer points of the canon law that we've heard here, which is not reflected here.

Does somebody have the newest version or the updated version of the canon law? The one we have is the one that Ms. Demers supplied.

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

I have one off a website. I would assume it's the most current. Usually websites are fairly current.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Does this...?

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

I don't know where Ms. Demers' source is from. I know mine is....

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

It's from a website.

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

Can I speak to a comment you made, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, certainly.

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

Thank you very much.

I think you make a valid point. I think we need to come to a conclusion on whether we're in a position to start commenting on religious practices. We have the Islamic religion, where they may have certain practices, certain beliefs regarding even issues like this, which we may or may not disagree with. We are parliamentarians, and I'm very concerned that we are beginning to comment and make judgments. We are making judgments on canon law and on religious practices, and I think we absolutely have no business doing this. We are going down a very slippery slope.

Those are my thoughts, but I would appreciate hearing other thoughts on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Just as a clarification, I did not make that comment.

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

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I referred to Ms. O'Neill-Gordon's making that comment.

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

Right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The role of the chair at certain times is to pull together so that you have the pieces of information in front of you to make good choices. It's not my choice; I'm only here to facilitate the discussion.

But Ms. O'Neill-Gordon has made that point. Ms. Neville has made a point with regard to clarification of information. It is for you now to look at those two and, as we discuss this issue, decide what it is you wish to do as a committee. We have two things here: one suggestion that we get further information and one suggestion that further information is not particularly relevant, because it is an issue of religion.

This is something that the committee should now discuss. Should we go further because Ms. O'Neill-Gordon's comment was made? Should we wait for further information for Ms. Neville? I need to get from this committee a decision about where we go from here at all, because we have two competing suggestions on the table. I want us to clarify where we move.

Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I find it rather odd that we not be able to discuss certain issues because they involve the Catholic faith. Are we to accept polygamy for the simple reason that it is practised by Mormons? Are we to accept polygamy and not discuss it because the Mormon faith accepts it? Are we to accept that children die because of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose faith prohibits blood transfusions? Are we to accept these things and never speak out on anything that derives from a religion, or is it simply because we are talking here of the Catholic faith? Unless I am mistaken, there are already debates under way in British Columbia on polygamy as it is practised in the Mormon community. If we can meddle with the Mormon faith, then we can also meddle with the Catholic faith.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Just to clarify, there is not a debate in B.C. on polygamy. In fact, the Attorney General has brought a case against polygamy, so it's not a debate; it's an actual legal action taken by the Government of British Columbia.

Now, how are we doing here?

Ms. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Especially for the reason that we seem to have very conflicting and inaccurate information, I would suggest that we need to either defer right this minute or ask for the vote and take it from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I will allow Ms. Glover to have a comment before we deal with deferring, as was suggested.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to point out that the information provided by Madame Demers is not from the Catholic books; it's not from the Catholic website. This is a paper that is done on ethics in law, and it's not signed, so I don't know which website. But there are many critics, as she pointed out, of different religions, etc. You can pull these from any website that wants to be critical. What we need is the information from the Vatican, basically.

But I agree with Madam McLeod when she says we need to deal with this quickly. I think we all agree we don't have enough information. We are saying she was not excommunicated, and that motion cannot proceed unless we can show otherwise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a number of points, but I'm not sure whether they're all connected or not.

First of all, I thank Madame Demers for bringing the motion forward and for the passion and her willingness to speak out so frequently on the issues related to women and children and the injustices that she sees falling on them. To even suggest that she doesn't care about children is, to my mind, heresy.

Having said that, I have a real problem moving forward with it, certainly without the full information--that in itself. Someone made the comment about what the role of this committee is and what the role of government is. We have issues related to sharia law that could well come before this committee; they have in the past and they are of a significant concern. My own view, and it's my view, is that our role in terms of commenting on the activity of any religious group—Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, whatever—is only pertinent when the role of government and the law intersect with the issue. I believe in this case government does not intersect with it; it's an internal church matter.

As I say, I have great respect for the commitment and passion that Madame Demers brings to the issue.

I have with me some other articles that I have gleaned where there have been many other inappropriate behaviours by the church, whether it relates to children, young women or young boys. I have one particular one as it relates to young boys. I don't know that it's our role to comment on the church's activity unless the government or the legal system impacts on it.

That would be my position, and I was asking for clarification in terms of canon law. We're asked about whether we believe we should comment on it or not; we're asked to make a decision based on conflicting information. So that's my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Madam Neville.

Perhaps I could take the prerogative of the chair and try to focus us as to where we move next.

Madame Demers made some important points when she talked about the legal case being brought against polygamy. We heard a very important point made by Tilly about the concept of this being a religious issue. We have heard from Ms. Neville about sharia law. But I think that in the end, Ms. Neville makes the key point here.

I want to refer to one important point, and this is the fact that in Canada now, the Government of Canada federally recognizes that marriage is between two persons to the exclusion of all others. In other words, this country has sanctioned legally, under the law, the ability for same-sex couples to be married. But very clear within that decision is the agreement that a church may decide not to sanctify marriage if it's against the church's law. Canon law is a church law. It is not a law.

Sharia, where it denies the rights of girls and women to be equal, again butts up against our Constitution with regard to equality between men and women in this country.

The issue of same-sex marriage was contravening section 15 of our own charter. This, however, is not that the girl is being penalized by the legal community in Brazil. It is not that Brazil is putting the girl in jail or whatever. The girl is forbidden to participate—if this is true or not, it's moot—in her church. That is a church's religious decision. This is not denying her freedom to walk the streets, to seek redress under the law, in my understanding.

Now, I would have thought that if we had wanted to take something up, we could have said that Brazil denied the girl the right of access to the law, etc. That would be very appropriate for us to do that, as it is appropriate for us to speak against President Karzai and his sharia law because it does deny equality of women and it puts women in a subsidiary, exploitative position.

This is about not being able to participate in your church. And indeed, even if we voted on this, and let us imagine that it passed, I don't know that the Government of Canada could ask a church to go against what we have as section 2 of our charter, which states the freedom of religion to decide with regard to who belongs to that religion, who practises within that religion.

So the points have been made by Ms. Neville and by Ms. O'Neill-Gordon. I think the issue here is not whether we should be debating the problem of the girl being raped or if she had been denied legal access because she was nine years old, etc. In the case of having a religious state, if Brazil was a religious state, as we see in Afghanistan, and the religion was brought to bear on the law of the nation that denied human rights, that's a totally different thing.

It's my understanding that even within Ms. Demers' own motion, this is about the term “excommunication”, which is the inability to participate in her religion, to receive the Holy Eucharist, or to be able to participate in all of the rites of the church. So this is purely within religion and no more.

I would like to suggest—and of course you are free to challenge the chair on this—that even if we voted for or against this motion, it would not be an appropriate one to come before a committee or to request the government to deal with, because we would be in violation of our own charter if we did. I've made this comment.

We now have six members over on the other side. Who is the member signed to represent and to replace?

[Pierre Lemieux, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC]

Well, I think I can participate in the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, unless we have agreement by everyone, you can't participate in debate. Unless you are the signed replacement, you can't. We have just agreed that we thought that Ms. Glover was going to be the person replacing, so we have Shelly Glover as the official replacement.

You may be free to participate as a sixth person, as an observer, as an MP, if the committee agrees that you should.

Ms. Mathyssen?

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

I'm confused, Madam Chair, because at this point we're almost finished with these motions and are going into examining and working on this report. I'm at a loss to understand why we have six members of the government side, particularly when those of us who were here—