Justice Committee on Oct. 30th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to welcome our panel of witnesses on our study of Bill C-51 and to bring this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.

It's a pleasure to welcome Mr. Kmiec to one of his first justice committee meetings. He's been to a couple before, but it's nice to have him here. He always contributes very well when he's here.

It's a pleasure to welcome Mr. MacGregor back to our committee.

Today we welcome our first panel of witnesses: as an individual, Mr. Steve Coughlan, a professor at the Schulich school of law at Dalhousie University; the Canadian Council of Churches, represented by Peter Noteboom, the acting general secretary, and Mike Hogeterp, the executive committee member responsible for the commission on justice and peace; and from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Mr. Bruce Clemenger, president, and Ms. Julia Beazley, director of public policy.

Welcome. We'll go in the order in which your names appear on the agenda, so we'll start with Mr. Coughlan.

Mr. Coughlan, the floor is yours.

[Prof. Steve Coughlan, Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to address the committee with regard to Bill C-51. In particular, I'm going to be speaking to the provisions that are intended to remove various provisions from the Criminal Code, as well as various reverse onus portions of them.

I am in favour of this bill, but I'd like to explain that support by situating this bill within the broader endeavour of which it should be seen as only a small part.

I'd like to begin with a quote from a minister of justice:

I believe that the time has come to undertake a fundamental review of the Criminal Code. The code has become unwieldy, very difficult to follow and outdated in many of its provisions.

That's not a quote from the current Minister of Justice. That's a quote from Senator Jacques Flynn when he was the minister of justice in 1979. It's nearly 40 years since it was recognized that our code has been fundamentally flawed for a long time. Piecemeal reform since then has made the situation worse.

That's why I want to urge the committee to have a broader vision than just the proposals in this bill. Obviously this is the matter that's before you, and these are in themselves worthwhile, but to look at the task as only this is to ignore fundamental problems which have existed for decades. The last time there was a fundamental review of our Criminal Code was before I was born.

Let me make a statement that's going to sound like hyperbole, but it isn't. Canada doesn't have a criminal code. A code is a statute that sets out all the relevant law on a particular topic, and our Criminal Code, since it was first created in 1892, has never even pretended to do that.

Given the limits of time, I'm going to focus on only one particular issue there. There are many, in fact, but I'm going to focus just on one. It is that a code ought to tell us the elements that the crown needs to prove in order to prove someone guilty of an offence. Looked at another way, it ought to clearly tell people what behaviour is against the law, so that they are able to not break the law.

Our code doesn't do that. It has never tried to do that. In fact, the way it is currently drafted makes it more difficult, not less, to determine the elements of many offences. This is the direct cause of ambiguity, which is inconsistent with the rule of law.

Because of the limits on time, I'm going to focus only on one particular issue, the lack of what is referred to as a general part in our Criminal Code. Now, a general part is a common feature of criminal codes around the world. Among other things, it sets out the mental states that are required before a person can be found guilty of a crime. The notion that crime requires a guilty act and a guilty mind is very well known. As a general practice, our Criminal Code doesn't tell us what the guilty mind requirements of offences are. It doesn't have anything similar, for example, to section 15 of the German criminal code, which says that unless the law expressly provides for criminal liability based on negligence, only intentional conduct shall attract criminal liability. The failure of our code to take this basic and obvious step has very real consequences.

I'm going to take section 176 as an example, simply because it's the section that other people are here to talk about. From my perspective, it is a random section which is not particularly worse or better than any other. It is simply illustrative of the kinds of issues that arise.

Here's a very basic question. It's about offences related to clergymen in the language of the section. For an accused to be guilty of one of those offences, does the crown have to prove the accused knew that her actions were directed toward a clergyman? In paragraph 176(1)(b), the answer is clearly yes. That subsection says, “knowing that a clergyman”, so it tells us that knowledge is required. On the other hand, paragraph 176(1)(a) just refers to obstructing a clergyman, without talking about whether knowledge is required or not.

Is it sufficient that the person obstructed was in fact a clergyman, or does the crown have to prove that the accused knew that? On the one hand, we might say that one section talks about knowledge and the other doesn't, so that's an obvious difference between the two. The trouble is that the Supreme Court of Canada has told us to assume that every section of the Criminal Code requires knowledge, so that leads to the conclusion that both of them require knowledge. But if both of them require knowledge, then why did one of them bother to say that knowledge was required when we were going to assume that knowledge was required even if it hadn't said that?

No matter how the section is looked at, there's going to be some inconsistency there, making it impossible to be sure in advance what the section means. Exacerbating the problem that most of the time the code doesn't tell us mental states is that sometimes it does, but when it does, it uses inconsistent and contradictory language to do so.

Another part of section 176 talks about “wilfully” disturbing religious worship. As someone who has closely studied the Criminal Code for 30 years, I say with confidence I have no idea what that means. Sometimes when the Criminal Code uses the word “wilfully”, it means that the person's act was intentional. Sometimes it means that it wasn't the act that was intentional, but the consequence of that act that was intentional. Sometimes it means that whether the act was intentional or not, or whether the consequence was intentional or not, the accused was reckless with regard to that, and then sometimes the word “wilfully” means that the accused didn't think about something when it would have been appropriate to think about something.

The code itself uses exactly the same word to mean at least five different things, depending on which section of the code you're looking at, and that, from my perspective, illustrates the insidious nature of the problem. If you simply read section 176, on the face of it there's nothing wrong with it. This problem isn't obvious in looking at section 176; it's a problem that becomes apparent only when you look at the code as a whole and see the inconsistencies in the way in which things are done.

Now, as I say, I picked section 176 largely at random. It's an obscure provision and obviously doesn't have a huge impact on the day-to-day workings of the criminal justice system, but this problem and similar problems arise virtually throughout the code, and they arise for such routine and common offences as assault and theft, which, between the two of them, make up about 20% of the business of the criminal justice system. These problems have a very real impact.

Here's another example of problems caused by the absence of a general part. Let's say a person is asked to help smuggle cigarettes into the country without paying duty, which is a relatively minor offence, but in fact unknowingly assists in smuggling cocaine into the country, which is a much more serious offence. Which one should that person be guilty of? The offence they actually committed, or the less serious offence that they thought they were committing?

Well, again, whether you think it should be the more serious or the less serious offence, it would at least be nice to know what the law in Canada is. Now, the German Criminal Code, in subsection 16(2), says the person is only guilty of the less serious offence. In Canada...? Well, in 1965 the Yukon Territory's Court of Appeal seemed to suggest that the person would be guilty of the more serious one. In 1971, the British Columbia Court of Appeal seemed to suggest that the person would be guilty of only the less serious one.

In 1976, the Supreme Court of Canada had a chance to settle the issue, but actually didn't settle the issue, so we just don't know. There is no answer to that question in Canadian law. It comes up, and you just have to guess.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said:

If an accused must wait “until a court decides what the contours and parameters of the offence are then the accused is being treated unfairly and contrary to the principles of fundamental justice”....

The fact is, however, that most of the time the Criminal Code does not set out the contours and parameters of the offences and we have to wait for a court to do it. This is just a blind spot; we just all struggle along, pretending that this isn't true.

This is why I say that a much larger task than simply removing some particular sections from the code is necessary. The major systemic problems we face cannot be solved by tinkering.

Yes, it's worth removing these sections, but doing that is going to have only a minor impact on bringing our code up to date. It is now literally impossible to add any new provision to this code in a way that does not contradict and create inconsistencies with some other part of the Criminal Code.

Only a large-scale review, including the inclusion of a general part, can solve that problem.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Coughlan.

We will move to the Canadian Council of Churches.

[Peter Noteboom, Acting General Secretary, Canadian Council of Churches]

Thank you.

I'll be using prepared remarks that were circulated with the Canadian Council of Churches at the top, and speaking especially to clause 14 and the removal of section 176.

Thank you for the invitation to appear as a witness in this committee. We appreciate your outreach, and applaud the committee for connecting with representative organizations whose membership is affected by this legislation.

We would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather today is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people. Further, nearly each and every community in Canada is home to communities of the Christian faith who belong to a member denomination of the Canadian Council of Churches, so we also acknowledge that the Canadian Council of Churches and its members live, work, and worship on the territories of first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples of the land.

The Canadian Council of Churches (CCC) is the broadest and most inclusive ecumenical body in the world, now representing 25 denominations of Anglican; Evangelical; Free Church; Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox; Protestant; and Catholic traditions. Together the CCC is comprised of 85% of the Christians in Canada who profess adherence to a church.

The Canadian Council of Churches was founded in 1944.

The Canadian Council of Churches also participates in the Canadian Interfaith Conversation, whose charter vision states that “deep in the life of Canada and Canadians is the identity and practice of religion” and so “represents the desire to advocate for religion in a pluralistic society and in Canadian public life.” Together, its members “want to promote harmony and religious insight among religions and religious communities in Canada, strengthen our society’s moral foundations, and work for greater realization of the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion for the sake of the common good and an engaged citizenship.”

That's the introduction. Now I will speak a bit on the context and relevance.

Tomorrow is Reformation Day. It will be 500 years since Martin Luther disrupted the Christian church in Europe, was obstructed and prevented from celebrating divine service, and was arrested on his way to or from the performance of his duties. This year, the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches are making history celebrating services under the theme “Conflict to Communion”.

In more recent years, Martin Luther King embodied and led a civil rights movement that was rooted in his and his community's religious practices. He and his community—an assemblage of persons meeting for a moral, social and benevolent purpose—was repeatedly disturbed and interrupted.

Here in Turtle Island, Canada, Dan Cranmer held a potlatch on the coast of British Columbia at the village of 'Mimkwamlis, during Christmas of 1921, and was arrested. Colonialism is an obstruction to religious freedom. For the period 2010 to 2013, StatsCan reports an average of 67 incidents per year of mischief motivated by hate in relation to religious property, as reported by police.

Religious expression is a central part of the identity and values of all people of faith in Canada. In faith traditions around the world, the religious leader is indispensable to the celebration or performance of religious ceremonies or rites. When they are unlawfully prevented or obstructed from serving or performing any other function in connection to their calling, then a whole religious community experiences harm. Given this ongoing significance of faith and religious leadership in the lives of a significant number of people in Canada, we respectfully submit that section 176 of the Criminal Code is not redundant or obsolete.

[Mike Hogeterp, Executive Committee Member, Commission on Justice and Peace, Canadian Council of Churches]

Mr. Chair and committee members, here are our recommendations.

The members of the Canadian Council of Churches are not of one mind regarding whether or not to retain section 176 of the Criminal Code. Frankly, many of our members had not been alerted in a timely fashion to the relevance and impending actions contained in the bill before you today.

However, members of the Canadian Council of Churches are of one mind regarding both the duty of the Government of Canada to respect and protect the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, and also, to ensure that there is no preference in the Criminal Code for a specific religion, but instead to favour a recognition of open and robust pluralism in Canadian society.

Should the Government of Canada retain section 176 of the Criminal Code, then we recommend that the reference to “clergyman or minister” be updated to be inclusive of all religious traditions, either via an inserted definition that refers to religious and spiritual officials from all religious traditions, including indigenous spiritualities, or to replace “clergyman or minister” with the phrase “religious or spiritual officials or leaders”. We further recommend consultation with religious leaders, including indigenous spiritual leaders, on how best to define an inclusive understanding of religious and spiritual leaders or officials in the law. Second, the gender-specific masculine language should be changed to refer to men or women religious or spiritual officials or to be gender non-specific.

In addition, we would like to reiterate our long-standing encouragement to the Government of Canada to establish regular working relationships with religious leaders in Canada either through the establishment of a religious leaders round table or a working relationship with representative bodies like the Canadian Interfaith Conversation, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and other representative bodies. Of course, in an era of reconciliation, such dialogue must certainly include indigenous elders and spiritual leaders. Faith that is focused on the good of all is an important element of public dialogue in the diverse reality of contemporary Canada.

To conclude, the key overriding concern of the Canadian Council of Churches is the right to freedom of religion and the freedom of worship of religious communities, including gatherings for a moral, social, or benevolent purpose. This is not about privileging Christianity, but ensuring peaceful coexistence in a pluralistic society.

We are not advocating for a position of privilege or dominance for religious communities or leaders, but instead we want to ensure the freedom of everyone to gather for their religious celebrations.

Thank you. Merci. Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

[Bruce Clemenger, President, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada]

Good afternoon. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada welcomes this opportunity to address this committee on Bill C-51.

Established in 1964, the EFC provides a national forum for the leaders and institutions of Canada's four million evangelicals and a constructive voice for biblical principles in life and society.

Religious freedom, expression, and collaboration have been hallmarks of our work for decades. We work together with interfaith partners on issues of common concern, sharing in conversations about the role of religion in a pluralistic society.

We have addressed religious discrimination and supported religious freedom in more than 20 court interventions over the years, including in support of non-evangelicals.

Our concern is with clause 14 of Bill C-51, which would remove section 176 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is being argued that section 175 and other general prohibitions on assault make section 176 redundant. With respect, we disagree.

[Julia Beazley, Director, Public Policy, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada]

Section 176 is not redundant. The existing case law pertaining to this section shows us that the nature of the disruption matters. Paragraph 175(1)(a), on causing a disturbance, for example, requires loud or offensive noises, screaming, shouting, swearing, or obscene language, but not all disruptions of religious gatherings will engage section 175. There are disruptions that are profoundly disturbing, upsetting, and even frightening to worshippers that don't involve physical contact or loud or offensive noise, and in these cases, subsections 176(2) and 176(3) offer needed protection and reassurance.

We see this illustrated in the B.C. court decisions regarding Joseph Reed, who has many times disrupted services of Jehovah's Witnesses. Initially, Mr. Reed used a megaphone when he disrupted the gatherings. He was charged and convicted in those instances under section 175. He went on to deliberately disturb and interrupt meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses several more times but without making excessive noise.

He's been charged with other offensives, such as assault, because his disruptions have included a range of behaviours and tactics, but he has also been charged and convicted of disrupting a worship service. The charges laid under section 176 reflect both the nature of the disturbance, and, importantly, the intent of his actions, which were calculated in each instance to willfully disrupt the worship services.

A 1985 decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal said:

There is no allegation that Mr. Reed was shouting or screaming or causing an undue amount of noise. However, that is not a condition precedent to the operation of s. 172(2). It is an offence simply to disturb or interrupt an assemblage of persons met for religious worship, regardless of the motive.

In a 1994 B.C. Court of Appeal decision, Madam Justice Proudfoot stated:

Section 175(1)(a) makes it an offence to cause a disturbance in or near a public place. Section 176 makes it an offence to wilfully disturb or interrupt an assemblage of persons met for religious worship, or to wilfully do anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of such a meeting. In my view, the sections are quite different. Section 176 specifically targets interference with religious services or worship, but s. 175 deals with a variety of problems.

It is our submission that subsections 176(2) and 176(3) provide unique and specific protection for religious gatherings from disruption that is not offered by other sections of the Criminal Code, and should therefore be retained.

Section 176 also gives unique protection for religious services in public places. Subsections 176(2) and 176(3) provide unique protection for things like a religious procession on a street, a Jewish ritual enclosure in a public place, or a service in a park, particularly in cases where the criteria in paragraph 175(1)(a) are not met. To remove this section would unnecessarily strip away explicit protection for religious gatherings and officials and would undermine the assurance of religious practitioners that they may gather safely.

Second, removal of section 176 will diminish protection for religious freedom. In her statements before this committee, the Minister of Justice said that removal of this provision would in no way affect people's religious freedom. While we respect that this may not be the intention, we do believe the removal of this provision will have this effect.

As the B.C. Court of Appeal found in 1994, “Section 176(3) protects the freedom of religion of persons 'met for religious worship'”.

An earlier B.C. Court of Appeal decision stated, “Such things as freedom of assembly and freedom of association, which are also in the Charter, could be meaningless without some such protection as s. 172(2).” This is now subsection 176(2).

Further, this move seems inconsistent with other government efforts to increase protection for religious communities and address hatred and discrimination, such as Bill C-305 and motion M-103. To remove the specific protection for religious officials and gatherings from the Criminal Code then sends a confusing and contradictory message to faith communities in Canada, many of whom feel particularly and increasingly vulnerable.

The meetings of religious communities are a fundamental expression of belief and practice and an outworking of religious freedom. Section 176 specifically protects the rights of individuals to freely practise this essential element of their religious belief and practice together.

[Bruce Clemenger]

Finally, and significantly for many faith communities in Canada, the removal of section 176 would communicate a lack of understanding and appreciation for the value and uniqueness of religious gatherings. Religious gatherings are distinct in character and purpose. They're not just like any other public gatherings or assemblies of persons, and an attack on a religious official or religious gathering is also distinct in nature and purpose.

We submit therefore that it's not only valid but an important objective for Parliament and the Criminal Code to continue to treat them as such. As the “Rapporteur's Digest on the Freedom of Religion and Belief” notes, “members of religious communities or communities of belief, whenever they find themselves in places of worship, are in a situation of special vulnerability given the nature of their activity.”

An offence against people at worship reverberates through the community and touches every member. An offence against one faith at worship has an impact on all religious adherents. The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief also notes “attacks or other forms of restriction on places of worship or other religious sites and shrines in many cases violate the right not only of a single individual, but the rights of a group of individuals forming the community that is attached to the place in question.” Our faith and every other faith expresses a specific vision of how life should be lived. For many, it is the ultimate commitment to a divine being or force that provides personal and communal direction to life. For many believers, part of living out that faith includes gathering corporately with like-minded believers for reflection, contemplation, communion, teaching, and worship. This matters.

The specific protection offered by section 176 recognizes that there is something different, distinct, and valuable about religious practice. It recognizes that there is a good that is worthy of specific and explicit protection. To remove this protection would erode that recognition and undermine the value and place of religious belief and practice in Canada. The minister has expressed concern that the language of subsection 176(1) is specific to the Christian faith or Christian clergy. We believe it should be made clear that this protection is extended to all faith communities. We have two recommendations to the committee.

The first is that Bill C-51 be amended to retain section 176, and the second is that the language of paragraphs 176(1)(a) and 176(1)(b) be amended to make it clear that this specific protection is extended to leaders of all faith communities. Hence, the words “clergyman or minister” could be replaced with a term such as religious official or religious leader.

Section 176 is not redundant. It provides unique protection and a unique form of expression. We urge you to amend Bill C-51, to fulfill the charter's guarantee of religious freedom, and to maintain the protection of the integrity and security of religious worship in Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much for all of your testimony.

We'll now go to questions, starting with the Conservative side.

Mr. Nicholson, go ahead, please.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

Just for the record, I'd like to thank you, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. With regard to the last point that you made, that is the interpretation of the Government of Canada. When it refers to clergy or ministers, it is referring to all religious officials. I was at the Department of Justice, and there was certainly no interpretation that did not also include rabbis and other religious officials.

Indeed with respect to the masculine terminology, I remember back in the 1980s that the Government of Canada did make an effort to try to neutralize many sections of federal laws. Obviously there's still a way to go, but it is interpreted as one or the other.

I'll start with you, Mr. Coughlan. One of the things that I always heard about the common law, even as it is applied to legislation, was about how that ability to interpret it over the years actually made it more effective. The Criminal Code has been in place for the last 125 years, but your study is saying that the German system is much more successful. Their criminal code has been much more successful than has the Canadian one. Is that basically your position?

[Steve Coughlan]

I'm trying to suggest that the basic rules around criminal liability ought to be in our Criminal Code. They are implicit in section 9 of the Criminal Code, which abolishes common-law crime. It is implicit within the charter, which guarantees the rule of law and the principle of legality, which is that the law has to be knowable in advance. When for essentially half of criminal law, you don't tell people what the rules are, it's not knowable in advance.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I can tell you, having been justice minister and having gone around the world to Commonwealth meetings, I almost always got praise for the Canadian system of putting the criminal law together in one book, albeit a thick book. You said we perhaps should be studying the German system as an improvement to that?

[Steve Coughlan]

Well, no, I think the praise you're getting is for the notion that we have moved along the way towards codification. I'm just encouraging us to move further in that direction.

I don't think we could ever get rid of all matters of interpretation. It's certainly true that there will be scope for deciding what a particular word means and what Parliament had in mind. To use your illustration, clearly, “clergyman” would have to be interpreted as first of all not a reference to the male gender, and secondly not about a Judeo-Christian religion. Sure, we'll always have interpretation, but my concern is much deeper than that. It's not that it's interpretation but that we actually put obstacles in the path of allowing courts to interpret by setting up three or four contradictory rules, all of which govern exactly the same situation. That's what I'm trying to avoid.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

To the Canadian Council of Churches, you were taken a little bit by surprise, I take it, by the removal in Bill C-51 of section 176; I can tell you that I was myself. To be fair, I watched very clearly, and in the press releases, the scrums, etc., there was no reference whatsoever to the fact that the protection of religious ceremonies was being taken out of the Criminal Code. I had to find it for myself, quite frankly.

A number of your members were taken by surprise, but basically, you still support the idea that disrupting a religious service and threatening those who conduct religious services is a serious matter that should be protected within our Criminal Code?

[Peter Noteboom]

Yes, absolutely. Whether or not other sections of the Criminal Code cover it sufficiently or not, we're not really in a position...because, as you mentioned, it wasn't clear in the presentation of the bill and it wasn't widely circulated in advance. Many member denominations of the council really heard about it for the first time after I phoned them up last week and said we should talk about this.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I appreciate that.

To the Evangelical Fellowship, you would be aware, and I think you pointed out, that in fact there are provisions of the Criminal Code—mischief provisions, for instance, or public disturbances. But if I understand the point you're making, even though there could be other sections of the Criminal Code, it is a serious matter if somebody's religious service is being disrupted. They have a right to practice their religion and a right to do that undisturbed. It is serious enough to require a separate section of the Criminal Code. Is that basically your position?

[Bruce Clemenger]

Yes, it is. We believe there are elements of section 176 that are not replicated in other parts of the Criminal Code. Secondly, it would be symbolic: religion is unique in Canada, its expression is unique, and it therefore is deserving of unique and specific protection.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

So this would send out the wrong message if this was just completely deleted and the public was told to rely on the mischief sections or other sections of the Criminal Code.

[Bruce Clemenger]

Yes.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. McKinnon.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Professor Coughlan, understanding that most of what you talk about is not within our scope, could you give me an idea of the scale of effort it would take to totally renovate the Criminal Code the way you suggest?

[Steve Coughlan]

Yes. It's a matter I've given some thought to.

On the one hand, it can look like a huge task, no question. In part, it's been undertaken. Many of these rules, though, are not rules that are really in dispute. The Supreme Court of Canada, most recently in the A.D.H. case, has said here are the rules that ought to govern us. In this bill, for example, the Department of Justice has gone through particular sections simply trying to rephrase them to be quite consistent on technicalities. To assist in reading the bill, for example, the part saying “it is an offence” will always come at the beginning rather than at the end.

To a very great extent, much of this could be accomplished by putting in some statements like “knowledge is required for all circumstances unless the code says otherwise” or “intent is required unless the code says otherwise”. Say that early on, and then simply go through the code and remove words. Take out “wilfully” where it's not adding anything. Take out “corruptly”. Take out “intentionally”. Take out “knowingly” where it's already covered by that.

Most of it is not actually rethinking these provisions but just rewriting them in a consistent way. It's a big task, but it's not an unmanageable task.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I see. It seems to me a little bit onerous. As well, of course, you'd have to map the old provisions into the new to make sure they all had a home there. You'd have a whole host of new language that hadn't been tested before the courts. I think it would be a big job, but I appreciate your input.

To the Council of Churches, I didn't see in your presentation an argument for why we should keep section 176. I've heard some pretty persuasive arguments for why. Do you agree with those arguments, or do you have anything to add to them?