I don't, but I have to look at each of the sections.
When you look at the hate offence, for example, that is something that is being added which is new, because it is labelling the offence in a different way from the way it is currently labelled. By the way, it's completely consistent with even the more limited use of the criminal law in the United States. They have hate offences in the same way as is being proposed here.
The reason the labelling is important is that a lot of the hate-mongers are repeat offenders, and it's important that the criminal record labels their prior offences in a way that prosecutors and police know that the prior offences were hate motivated. That is not always apparent from looking at the record, and it provides for enhanced penalties if the Crown proceeds by indictment. For me, that's not duplication.
In terms of intimidation and obstruction, because I know your time is limited I'll answer very quickly to say that it is already criminalized by other offences. For me, the message I am getting from police is that if we specifically deal with it in the context of access to places of worship and other places, that will give greater priority and attentiveness on the part of the police to utilizing these provisions effectively.
I recognize the duplication. I would normally agree with you that we don't simply duplicate for the sake of duplication, but for me I think there is some important messaging through the use of those provisions.