I'll be very brief because I know the member's time is short, but it is an important issue.
This means that a prosecutor has to prove, as an essential ingredient of the terrorist activity or crime, that there has been political, religious, or ideological purpose. So think of a group that arises out of a particular religion but is not necessarily a part of that religion. These individuals believe they are carrying out a particular religious mandate.
The concern that has been expressed by some is that to collect evidence of religious motivation may unfairly impact on that religion when it doesn't have anything to do with that religion. You stigmatize a religion unfairly by calling forward that evidence.
Now that phrase seems to have been adopted more by Commonwealth countries based on the British model. The British, for some reason, have adopted that, probably arising out of their terrorist experience in Great Britain itself. It has been adopted by Australia and some other Commonwealth countries. Canada has adopted that as well. But if you look at the American legislation and other European legislation, that motivation element does not appear.
I'm wondering why we chance the risk of so-called racial profiling in a prosecution when it's not necessary in other countries to have that element.