With respect to whether we need a definition of hatred, that has already been analyzed by the Supreme Court of Canada in various decisions. I think taking that definition, it doesn't need to be....
We already know that section 13 is constitutional in the way it's written now. I would hesitate to include a definition or a threshold, because we don't want to muddy the water. We have a good body of case law that clearly indicates there is a very high threshold for section 13. There is a test that tribunals use, which, as I mentioned, requires there to be hallmarks of hatred within a publication.
Those hallmarks of hatred are specifically chosen, because through history we have found, through sociological evidence and also through looking at past examples of dehumanization of peoples, that this type of rhetoric, these hallmarks are used. That's what leads to the dehumanization of individuals. Dehumanization of individuals then leads to discrimination, violence and hatred against them.
I believe we already have those tools, and we don't need to reintroduce them into the legislation. It's a constitutional provision, and the parameters of its use have been outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada.