“activity that undermines the security of Canada”

“activity that undermines the security of Canada” includes many things, a subsection of one is terrorism. But not every activity that undermines the security of Canada is terrorism.... as the definition you provided explains.

This is the part of the bill that is going to lead to problems for activist groups if passed without amendment.

Some groups are suggesting that this bill could potentially lead to some methods utilized by some activist groups as undermining the security of Canada. This is a more valid criticism... not that they are going to label anyone who donates to Greenpeace a terrorist.

This will depend though on a) the actions taken by the group, b) the courts interpretation of 'security of Canada' and c) the resulting effect of the action

The bill does clairfy that For greater certainty, it [undermining the security of Canada] does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

Could a first nations group that sets up armed roadblocks on a provincial highway, confiscating the property of non-first nation members who try to pass though be considered undermining the security of Canada under this bill... yes. Could an environmental group that sabotages logging equipment be undermining the security of Canada under this bill... potentially.

But these are acts that there already exists considerable recourse under the Criminal Code for.... I doubt the courts would extend such a serious application, to these events, and rather retain 'Undermining the security of Canada' to more serious, and egregious offences against broader Canadian society and its security.

But the broad wording of the bill in this regard, is a concern, and there is valid criticisms surrounding it. But when you run around saying "everyone going to be a terrorist", the legitimate criticisms get lost.