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.