The federal justice minister's suggestion to remove the motivating factors of politics, religion and ideology from Canada's definition of terrorism will make anti-terrorism laws less clear, a Liberal MP says.

Stephen Owen, who helped move the Anti-Terrorism Act through committee in 2001, said using a more neutral definition could make the law too broad and render it ineffective.

Under the act, terrorism is defined as an act of violence committed for political, religious or ideological reasons.

"It was to capture this very strange and different motivation for violence — for great violence and harm," Owen said.

This week, Justice Minister Vic Toews suggested the current definition impedes prosecutors and could lead to racial profiling.

"Having to prove that type of motive creates an additional hurdle on a prosecutor and at the same time may create some kind of religious targeting or racial targeting," Toews said before a Senate committee reviewing the act.

Definition of terrorism at issue

B.C. Senator Mobina Jaffer has also raised concerns about the definition of terrorism in the act. She told members at the committee that some people worry the definition gives authorities the right to question how often individuals go to mosques and what they do there.

"I've heard from the communities and would ask whether you would consider whether the time has come that you would take that out and just call it terrorist activities generally," she said.

Ziyaad Mia, who is with the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, said he prefers the international definition of terrorism that describes it as a violent act against civilians to intimidate them or their government.

"That is clearly a very useful definition of terrorism and it doesn't need to be muddied by going into people's personal background, or their religion or their particular religious practices," he said.

Mia added that Canada doesn't even need an Anti-Terrorism Act,  suggesting existing criminal law could be strengthened to afford Canada the same protection.