My suggestion is that, when you want to create legislation, you have to understand it's only going to stand if it's indeed constitutional. There's no purpose in passing legislation that, as soon as it encounters a constitutional challenge, will be struck down. If you want to address this issue of hate, you have to craft legislation that conforms to the existing limitations and jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In this case, I would just say that, at minimum, you have to go back to the definitions in the bill, particularly those found in proposed subsection 319(7), as proposed by clause 4, and have it reflect quite accurately what is said in the leading cases of the Supreme Court of Canada, particularly Whatcott—as I and Professor Pardy have highlighted.