Madam Speaker, clearly, religious freedoms are an important subset of human rights.
No one on this side of the government would argue with that. In fact, we are very much in favour of promoting and supporting human rights. The issue, as was brought up by the member, is that it is a very narrow definition.
Another point that was brought up was the question of atheists. These people have decided they are not religious and do not ascribe to any religion. Unfortunately, the Office of Religious Freedom would not protect them, because they are not ascribing a religion to them. It would be a concern of mine to say that if someone has decided not to be part of a religion, they should not have their human rights protected.
Is the member not concerned by that and should we not be protecting atheists as well? If we are to protect atheists who are religious, would we not want to look to expand the question of religious freedoms?