Yes, I believe so. I think writing down clarifies, and also entrenches in the law. It wouldn't be subject to future judicial decisions that might narrow the grounds somehow. I'm not saying that would happen, but it does entrench those rights. It does provide that sense of inclusion and encourages people to use the law to protect the same rights that others have.
On the question of redundancy, without being flippant, I think it is true that if we went to the Criminal Code, we could shorten it a lot. There's already a lot of redundancy in the Criminal Code. So I don't think that.... If that argument is true, and I don't believe it is true, I don't think that's something that should bar us from including this, at any rate.
I guess a third thing I would say is that when I brought this bill forward, I did it in the spirit that—you mentioned it—I believe there are Canadian values of inclusion that are very, very important to all of us in Parliament. I don't believe they are exclusive to one side or the other. That is why I have spent a lot of my time on this bill, talking to people in other parties and trying to understand where the common ground is.
Regarding the amendments, in my best world, I wouldn't be amending the bill, because I have confidence in the way it was written. But what I have tried to do is find the common ground we have in Parliament, as Canadians, to move forward on this question. That is why I am bringing the amendments forward, hoping—