I guess, Mr. Chair, neither of us are lawyers.
When the Canadian Bar Association itself, and Professors Roach and Craig, who have written extensively on this, studied this, they had concerns. Moreover, the NDP has an amendment that basically takes a lot of this clause out. They don't think it can be fixed.
I understand your words that if there's active encouragement—that makes sense to me—then the charges should be there. But there are too many people in the legal profession, in my view, who have come forward with concerns about this. Should we therefore be limiting this in some fashion, not to coddle to terrorists, but to be absolutely sure that we have it right? I think you're telling me that the definitions that apply to these proposed sections are the definitions that relate to terrorist offences in the Criminal Code. Am I correct on that?