Thank you.
I have one short, last question before we go to the next panel. I'm going to direct it to the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
I just want to make sure that I have your testimony generally straight. As I understand it, there are two arguments. One of them is that there's a gap if we remove section 176. I would refer back to subparagraph 176(1)(b)(ii), where a clergyman on the way to perform a function cannot be arrested under the pretence of executing a civil process. I don't think that is found anywhere else in the Criminal Code. Presumably that would be a gap. You're also arguing that 176 is potentially a lesser threshold than 175, with respect to creating a disturbance. That may be an issue, and we'll review that.
You're also saying—and I think this is important—that symbolically, 176 is important because within 176 is the only place in the Criminal Code that you see mention of religious worship. You recognize yourselves and your members, whether or not the section is regularly used, and draw comfort from the fact that that recognition is there in the Criminal Code.
Would I be correct in expressing that?