Generally speaking, I would agree with that. I followed the debates very closely in this respect, and I think the prior government and the prior Minister of Justice recognized the delicate balancing act that needs to take place.
The only comment I would make is that in the past I have expressed some concern about the definition of terrorism activity. I only commend that issue to you for your consideration. I'm not necessarily suggesting any changes, but I think it is an issue that needs to be examined. It's something that I raised many years ago.
I note that some of the groups that came in front of the committee a few years ago expressed that the phraseology of the motivation to be proven, the political, religious, or ideological motivation, may lend itself to racial profiling or similar kinds of concerns.
At the same time, I've now heard the RCMP commissioner, and I must admit that the evidence I heard was second-hand. His statement seemed to imply that he would like to see it removed or, if the motivation clause were removed, without stating whether he preferred that or not, he could then use this to attack organized crime.
An issue you might want to look at is whether that would be overly broad or whether that would be acceptable in a free and democratic society.