It could be a bit of both. It could be that not everyone is aware of section 176. Many of our churches had the same process as the Canadian Council of Churches. They became aware of section 176 through their conversations and dialogues. More and more have studied it, and, again, you begin getting letters. It could be that for those instances where section 176 could have been applied, maybe section 175 or other did satisfy.
We talk to faith leaders about it, and what we are finding is that there is a level of comfort. If they were not aware of section 176, when they come across it and see it in text, it actually gives additional comfort, because of the increase of hostility, as was mentioned before—the increase of hate-motivated crimes against people of faith.
The question is, in this environment, why are we now removing explicit protection rather than affirming and perhaps amending, where needed, to guarantee that explicit protection?