Sure.
I guess what I'm advocating for is actually a better situation than is currently existing with legitimate protest groups and government law enforcement. It is extraordinarily adversarial, and it's also combative and really expensive.
During the Vancouver Olympics, the budget for surveillance and following protest groups like Greenpeace or others who might have wanted to interrupt what was going on at the Olympics in a quasi-violent way was millions and millions of dollars and person-hours spent on this, because there existed this complete wall between protest groups and government.
You're perfectly right that if you go down this slippery slope of nailing every type of behaviour as possibly criminal, the end result is the criminalization of legitimate protest.
What currently exists is a fairly broad umbrella of what is defined as terrorism in Canada, and then this grey area where law enforcement is able to use terrorism-related language and assets to pursue groups who, yes, are advocating for property destruction and a bunch of things that most people and legislators would rather not have, such as big protest marches and things like that. As it currently stands, it's the worst possible scenario. You have that legislative criminalization and terrorization of that activity and you have no mechanism in which to speak to each other in a way that isn't really expensive, and it plays badly in the public eye as well.