Perhaps I can use this occasion in introducing number 30 to explain to my dear friend Diane that the Green Party has no interest in coddling terrorists or those who are advocating terrorist acts, but this section is so badly worded that it could well ensnare people who are having private conversations with the goal of convincing someone not to become radicalized. This is why—I'm not debating it, Mr. Chair—I've brought forward this amendment, which says, “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (1)(a) if the communication was in private conversation”.
We'll note that similar legislation relating to hate crimes or child pornography excludes private conversations. This doesn't, which is why this section has been referred to as “thought chill”. It also leaves open if a person in good faith is having a conversation “on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”. I know that I won't have time to read my whole amendment, so I'll make sure I emphasize point (e), that “if, in good faith, he or she was communicating for educational purposes or for the purpose of deradicalization”.
The language we have here is so vague and broad in scope that it could very well create a situation where someone would be afraid to communicate with someone else for the purpose of talking them out of becoming involved in terrorism. That's what bad drafting and rushed legislation will do; it will make us less safe.
