Madam Chair, thank you very much.
I want to echo Mr. Levitt's kind comments about the four gentlemen who are here. They have served in ways in public policy that are tremendous, going from Mr. Matas's work in the collection of evidence in regard to organ harvesting to much more in regard to reducing racism and anti-Semitism. I just want to thank all of you.
Chair, I just want to say on the record that based on Mr. Fogel's comments, one of the positive non-partisan things that could come from here would be a recommendation in regard to a first ministers meeting in the future, where the focus would be, from the Government of Canada, on hate crimes and hate incidents.
Discussion and collaboration could happen in regard to the collection of hate incidents and crime data and the way it's aggregated and subsequently categorized so that it could be used for best practices in the future for legislators like us, as well as our provincial and municipal counterparts. That would include all levels of law enforcement, including, as we've studied previously in the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, security on university campuses. Some university campuses have their security sworn in and have their data collected by local law enforcement, but there are many across Canada where it is not collected, and hence has not been able to be used properly. I want to put that on the record.
Mr. Mostyn, I want to go to your testimony. Mr. Vandal—and I believe his comments were sincere and 100% from the heart—mentioned on a couple of occasions that we certainly wouldn't want to do anything to limit free speech. I absolutely believe that. There isn't anyone here who would want to do that. You mentioned something about Islamophobia and the fact that the definition has been hijacked. I want you to speak to that and why that's important in regard to our conversation and why it's not our decision where free speech might be limited but someone else's.