Okay, understood. That's how I would take it.
By the way, let me give due credit to Mark Sandler, who worked with Mr. Baber, who worked with me and who has been a leading voice in this fight against hate in Canada, along with members of an alliance who are all doing exemplary work.
I was originally going to do what Mr. Baber did, which was incorporate the same hate defences in what is essentially a terrorism provision, because that's what was suggested. In the same way that Mr. Baber feels strongly that it should still be an offence, I feel strongly that the defences that are listed as hate defences aren't terrorist defences. Regardless of whether someone thought it was okay on a religious basis, I don't think you're allowed to commit a terrorist act because you have a religious good-faith basis for it.
I think we've drafted it a bit differently. I think we could choose to amend one or the other to try to make it more.... What I am definitely concerned about is the way CPC-1 to CPC-4 are in a section of the act that doesn't come into the bill originally and I'm afraid it would be thrown out. As a result—with great respect to my colleague, whom I truly respect and give him due credit, whichever version passes—I believe it is better to go with the version where we're amending clauses that are already in the bill.
That's my thought, and I'll leave it there. I appreciate the collegiality on this discussion.