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?