If I understood your suggestion earlier, you were wondering if I would accept a so-called “friendly” amendment.
I do not agree that the English wording should take precedence, but I have no objection to asking whether there is support for it, even though the amendment did not meet the deadline. I am going to try my best to convince you. Either the 9/11 attacks are covered by the previous definitions… I just read the definition of “terrorist activity” in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code. If the 9/11 attacks are captured by that, then this is not necessary; the alternative would be the need to specify that this type of activity is not… Or we have to specifically target suicide attacks.
Having said that, I have no objection to another amendment being proposed immediately, if mine is defeated.