Thanks, Chair.
Professor Coughlan, I have a quick question for you.
It's obvious that there is a segment of Canadian society for which section 176 does mean a great deal. I certainly know that from the correspondence I've received. As a professor of law, when a crime occurs where someone does obstruct a clergyman, can you provide some insight into how crown counsel would deal with such a case and how they ultimately decide which section of the Criminal Code to use?
We know that section 176 is not used that often. Is crown counsel more likely to use other sections of the law because they may have harsher punishments? Is leaving section 176 in there as is going to do much harm for them, or is there a way we can reword it to make crown counsel's job easier? Just provide some of your thoughts on that.