A number of thoughts come to mind. Another witness will soon be before you—I just read their submission—and they would also point out that you referred to Criminal Code sanctions against assault, but there are also subcategories of different types of assault, which give different weights of punishment.
It's the same thing with disturbance. We think it's still appropriate to maintain separate provisions regarding disturbing either a religious official in the conducting of a religious service, or the religious services themselves. So it should be and it has been, and it's been found constitutional, and it's been used many times in the last 20 or 30 years. We think it should still be retained as it is understanding the unique nature of religion and religious services and what goes on in the religious context, unlike a hockey game or a meeting at a library, etc.
It's symbolic, but also giving precision and specific protection to what's going on, so we think that's where section 175 and other parts of the Criminal Code don't quite raise the threshold of section 176.