When I review the definition of hatred, not just in the Keegstra decision, but in the Whatcott decision as well, it's clear to me that vilification and detestation are extreme manifestations. To the extent that you have a different interpretation, know that the intent of the legislation was in fact to codify not only those specific sentences in the decisions but also the different factors that the courts would have used over the years to identify.
Should the committee feel that the legislation would benefit from a different reflection of the test that the Supreme Court has laid out, do know that this would not be a deal breaker for me, particularly if it would earn multipartisan support and send a signal to Canadians that all parliamentarians want to combat hate in their communities.
This was not an attempt to dilute the definition. It was an attempt to make good on the spirit of that definition and provide clarity to law enforcement.