Certainly. I find some of the previous questions ironic in this regard. In fact, the argument is somewhat self-defeating. On the one hand, there is a suggestion that free speech is somehow impacted, and in the next breath, you hear a question suggest that in fact it doesn't represent a change in the law. These two positions cannot possibly be reconciled.
When we developed these pieces of legislation, it was a priority to ensure that they didn't have a negative impact on the ability of Canadians to fully enjoy the rights protected by the Constitution, including the right to free expression. That's why, for example, when we wanted to deal with symbols of hate, we didn't use a blanket symbols ban but instead attracted it to the criminal behaviour of wilfully promoting hatred against another Canadian. There's a difference, in my view, between protesting a cause against some initiative or something that's happening in the world that you fundamentally disagree with and showing up to intimidate a person from practising their faith or physically obstructing them from attending their community centre or school or place of worship. Understanding where that line exists, as between sharing an opinion, broadcasting information, and causing harm, sometimes violent harm, to your fellow Canadians, is an important distinction.
I think this bill does a good job of scoping in behaviour that I believe should be criminal, and it will offer a greater degree of protections to Canadians to be themselves without infringing on the protections of the ability to express yourself freely.
