Our written brief—and I don't know if it's been circulated yet—speaks specifically to this issue and the need for clarity in the definition of “hatred”. I appreciate that the government has been very clear that the intent for this definition of “hatred” is to codify the established test, established by the Supreme Court in cases like Keegstra and Whatcott. We would support that.
We would like to see, though, that this definition is incorporated holistically. We are concerned that a number of important parameters have been omitted. We were encouraged, though, to hear the minister invite proposed amendments to address that, and that is what we've done in our brief.
There are three specific prescriptions that the Supreme Court set out in Whatcott that we think need to be made explicit in the bill. I can very quickly identify those three prescriptions.
The first is that hatred must be assessed objectively. Hatred is not assessed based on whether the speaker thought it was hateful or whether a complainant thought it was hateful—