Note that under Ontario law (this is a civil matter, so differs from province to province), it is perfectly legal to have a Shariah or other religion-based arbritration process. What is not an option, and was the cause of the controversy, is to make that arbritration agreement legally enforceable.
The issue was taking what was seen as a system unbalanced against women and making it the legal equivalent of the family court system, which is required by law to be balanced, and whether there would be a true free choice of which route to follow in many cases.
unenforceable arbitration is not really “arbitration”; and
it is only unenforceable to have an arbitration process in the area of family law based on anything other than the substantive family law in Ontario, Canada.
I was unclear on this second point as well, until I looked it up. You can still have Sharia law-based arbitration for other matters, and it will still be enforceable by the courts.
Which makes sense when you think about it … there is nothing stopping one from structuring some business deal based on any substantive law you want, and the court will enforce it (so long as it offends neither the law nor the public policy of the jurisdiction of the enforcing court). What causes qualms is subjecting people in unequal power arrangements to binding arbitration - the presumption being that family law is uniquely one of those areas where a power imbalance is more likely than not.