Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just building on the line of questioning by both the chair and Mr. Cooper, the two categories that seem to engage the section that is the subject of this act are hate speech and buildings and structures.
Based on your evidence, and as I understand your answers to the chair and Mr. Cooper, if we do away with any kind of defining of the categories of structures, does that render that second category essentially nugatory? What's the point of having any category?
I ask this because, if you go back to the original intent of Parliament when it created this section, it originally dealt specifically with building structures that are obviously and publicly identifiable as being used primarily for religious purposes, structures in those explicit categories that are already there. If we do away with that, what comments can you offer about what that does to the original intent of the section?