In my previous line of questioning with previous witnesses, the answer was given that people who are not religious but may belong to certain identifiable groups, if the person who's organizing them is prevented from officiating the meeting, that's their safe place and it may hold as much personal value to them as religion does to a religious person. Some witnesses made the arguments that the equality clause under section 15 of the charter is encompassed in subsection (2), so if we are removing the language “moral, social or benevolent purpose”, does that not make the argument for keeping section 176 a bit weaker? Is it not better to keep that language as is?
On October 30th, 2017. See this statement in context.