Bill C-332

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (coercive control of intimate partner)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of exercising coercive control of an intimate partner by engaging in a pattern of conduct that consists of any combination, or any repeated instances, of any of the following acts: using, attempting to use or threatening to use violence against certain persons, coercing or attempting to coerce the intimate partner to engage in sexual activity or engaging in other conduct that could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe that their safety, or the safety of a person known to them, is threatened.
It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Louise Riendeau]

Coercive behaviour isn't a new form of domestic violence or a synonym for psychological violence. Instead it's a term that reflects a broader vision of domestic violence. The main reason why women seek assistance at our shelters isn't physical violence, but rather other forms of violence. More than 44% of the women who receive outpatient services do so as a result of violence following a separation.

With funding from Women and Gender Equality Canada, we are conducting a project to encourage the various legal actors to incorporate the concept of coercive control in their practices. Now more than two years since it started, the project has had a major impact. First, we've created a tool box for legal actors and a booklet for the women themselves.

In addition, more than 6,000 professionals have received training to assist them in more effectively detecting coercive control. As a result, coercive control strategies are beginning to feature in police reports. We have also noticed that legal actors have acquired a clearer understanding of the risk associated with coercive control, particularly in preventing homicides.

Furthermore, Quebec's Ministry of Public Security has expanded the victim statement to include coercive control elements and has broadcast a webinar intended for all police officers in the province. It has also developed a “police placement”, a kind of checklist to be used at all police stations.

In addition, the director of criminal and penal prosecutions now requests that prosecutors take coercive control into account in the violent cases they handle.

Lastly, we are now witnessing a change in the way domestic violence is presented and discussed in the media.

These changes lead us to believe that the legal community is now focusing more clearly on coercive control. The Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale advocates for the criminalization of coercive control. It supports Bill C-332, as it was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In our view, criminalization would help validate the experience of the victims and their children and demonstrate that this behaviour is socially unacceptable. This would represent a significant step toward securing women's rights to safety, dignity, autonomy and freedom.

This new offence would also help provide legal professionals with additional tools to break the cycle of violence at an earlier stage and to intervene appropriately given the dangerous nature of this type of violence.

[Professor Jennifer Koshan, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to engage in your committee study of coercive control.

I'm joining you today from Treaty 7 territory in Mohkinstsis, which is the Blackfoot word for Calgary.

I'm speaking today on my own behalf, but I did file a submission with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for its study of Bill C-332 with three co-authors in March 2024. Our submission raised concerns with the criminalization of coercive control. I will not repeat those concerns in these opening remarks but certainly will welcome questions on that subject.

In my time today, I'll focus on research that I've conducted with colleagues Janet Mosher and Wanda Wiegers that examines how coercive control is being interpreted and applied under the Divorce Act. This research reveals several concerns, two of which I'll highlight today.

First, coercive control is being used against survivors. We found several cases where coercive control has been interpreted broadly by family courts—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have less than 25 seconds of speaking time left, so I'm hoping someone can answer my question in 10 or 15 seconds: How can we address this issue? Some people, including Ms. Gill, have talked about Bill C‑332. What could be complementary to our study and this bill?

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

There is a bill. It's Bill C-332, which is an act to amend the Criminal code. One part of it references coercive conduct as "including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities."

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies, thank you for taking the time to enlighten us on the subject of coercive behaviour.

Ms. Gill, since we began the study, everyone has told us about the difficulty regarding the burden of proof, which rests on the shoulders of the victim. It's extremely difficult, because it's hard enough to identify these behaviours upstream and to prove them in a court of law. The very fact of reporting it to the police is already a challenge, and submitting the evidence in the judicial process is another.

To your knowledge and from all your research, will criminalizing coercive control really make things easier? We currently have Bill C‑332 on the table, which is very interesting. Will its adoption make it easier for women to denounce behaviour, to be believed by the police, to win their cases and to convince a judge that they have been victims of coercive behaviour?

[Professor Carmen Gill, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the members of the committee for inviting me to present in this meeting on coercive behaviour.

My research focuses on the police response to intimate partner violence, IPV, especially coercive control. As such, I conducted a survey with police officers on their perception of IPV involving coercive control. IPV is multi-dimensional in nature and encompasses numerous forms of violence. It is often seen as an episodic and a one-term event, failing to address the complexity of an issue involving repetitive tactics used by abusers.

Violent behaviour does not necessarily involve physical violence or a single incident, but instead consists of a repeated and continuous pattern of behaviour that occurs over lengthy periods of time. Regardless of the violence, when the violence starts, whatever it looks like, it is the abuser's way of maintaining control over his partner.

Since the criminal justice system primarily places emphasis on the evidence of physical violence, first responders are to find evidence of such violence. Consequently, there is neglect in questioning the context of the abuse and the harm caused within the situation, which results in coercive control being unaddressed or dismissed. It is almost impossible for police officers to recognize a deprivation of rights to freedom, the obstruction to liberty and the control situation.

The recognition of coercive control as an offence would finally be a recognition that power and control over an intimate partner is a crime against the person. This would allow those caught in an abusive relationship to report when they are experiencing abuse, even if it's not physical violence.

Police officers must assess whether a situation is considered as IPV and potentially criminal. At the same time, we're asking them to recognize the signs of coercive control. Their assessment is twofold. On one hand, police officers are to determine if it is an isolated incident that is situational and caused by tension that led to a conflict escalation. On the other hand, they must assess if the situation involves a controlling pattern from the abuser, which would not be an isolated incident.

Coercive controlling behaviour is not always visible to outsiders and demands a deeper interaction with the survivor to determine the pattern in place. These patterns are built up over time and characterized by a combination of different tactics to control the intimate partner. It encompasses three pillars under which various behaviour can be identified. The first is the denying of resources or rights. The second is surveillance and micro-regulation. Finally, it is the manifestation of violence.

Coercive control blends into intimate relationships and is normalized in our society. It appears so normal that even survivors may consider that they are not abused because they were not physically assaulted. Identifying coercive controlling behaviour is like putting together a puzzle. It makes sense once the pieces of the puzzle relate to one another. Every professional working with survivors is in the delicate position of going beyond what they see on scene or what they consider what is IPV to ensure that they have a broad understanding of the context of the situation.

I think the revised Bill C-332 illustrates some of these tactics that can allow identification of such behaviour. How do you read a situation without visible physical violence? To optimize their response, police officers need to have a clear understanding of those behaviours and what they look like. They need to gather evidence that would not be looked for, and it starts by allowing identification of coercive control behaviour.

We have to remind ourselves that an enactment of coercive control offence will only be successful with support and adequate training of those who are going to implement it.

Thank you.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I think I misunderstood what you meant when you talked about France as an exception. I thought that France already had that as an exception. Thank you for clarifying.

I recently attended a conference on violence against women. It was put on by women's groups in my region, and obviously, the important issue of coercive control was discussed. Violence doesn't always take the form of bruises on a person's arm. It is actually much more than that. I remember hearing as a teenager a slogan to raise awareness among Quebeckers about violence against women. It stuck with me: Violence doesn't always involve hitting, but it always hurts.

Right now, we have a bill that addresses coercive control, Bill C-332. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights studied the legislation.

I want to go back to that study. I'm not sure whether you've had an opportunity to examine Bill C‑332 and form an opinion.

Ms. Silverstone and Ms. McManus, would you care to comment on the legislation Canada is currently studying?

Justice and Human Rights

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 22nd report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code, controlling or coercive conduct.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

No, I won't.

I want to thank the minister for his very clear presentation on Bill C-63.

I want to add two things to this discussion. One is that the loudest voices on this bill often do not include those who are most likely to be subjected to hate crime campaigns. When it comes before this committee, I'm looking forward to a diversity of witnesses who can talk about the real-world impacts that online hate has. We've seen it again and again. It's often well organized.

I stood outside the House of Commons and defended the rights of trans kids. Within one day, I had 700 emails with the same defamatory and hateful two-word phrase used to describe me. I am a privileged person. I have a staff. I have all the resources and support I need. However, when you think about what happens to trans kids and their families when they are subjected to these online hate crimes, it has very real consequences.

I'm looking forward to us being able to hear from diverse voices and, in particular, those who are most impacted. I know this is not really a question to you at this point.

We have other important work we've been doing in this committee. I want to turn to Bill C-332, which just passed this committee and was sent back to the House. This is the bill on controlling and coercive behaviour. This committee has been dealing with this topic for more than three years. One of the things that we quite clearly said was that the passage of this bill is a tool for dealing with the epidemic of intimate partner violence, but it's not the only tool.

I guess I'm asking two things here.

What other plans does the Department of Justice have to provide the necessary and associated supports for survivors of intimate partner violence?

What plans are there to do the educational work that will be necessary?

The bill says it will be proclaimed at a time chosen by cabinet. I'm assuming there will be a plan to get ready for this. I'm interested in what's going to happen with that plan. It has unanimous support, so I don't think it's premature to be asking about this at this point.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you for that.

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves—and I'm glad Mr. Fortin raised this particular one—is this: Should we as a committee, based on just this meeting today—not based on Bill C-332 and not based any of the witnesses who appeared before us at committee—make the conscious decision that in Canada, from now on, if you threaten multiple times to kill yourself, that's a criminal offence? That's what we're doing here.

It could be that we'd hear enough testimony from different groups that would lead us to the conclusion that, yes, there is a way this could be incorporated. The problem is that we around this table have not heard that. I do think, by a plain reading of this legislation, that this part and some of the others are quite troubling. Again, this is not a reflection on our witnesses. It's more directed to the government. The whole approach of introducing a bill that we haven't had....

I heard what Mr. Garrison said. Yes, we heard general testimony about Bill C-332, but we have not had the chance to ask anyone about any of these specific provisions. For example, I would like to have witnesses here to ask them about each one of the itemized new non-criminal offences that through this bill would now become criminal.

I'm just raising that last point to reiterate that, at this point, unless there are people here who will enlighten us through more testimony on each one of these provisions, I will have to vote against G-2 and support the language we've already considered and already had witness testimony on, which is in proposed subsection 264.01(1) of Bill C-332. I did not hear witnesses say that we had that wrong and that this bill won't be helpful. We heard some testimony that said there are models that itemize some things, but threatening to die by suicide was never suggested at this committee. Words matter. By the testimony of our witnesses here today, this is criminalizing non-criminal behaviour in the context of coercive control. Obviously, we have to be very careful about what gets added to that list.

This is just one thing that's been flagged. I don't see how we could be ready to proceed with G-2 on that basis alone.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To expand on that a bit, here's the problem.

Madam Levman, you've mentioned that the government heard about this particular aspect. I can tell you that I don't remember hearing that in the witness testimony we heard. I'm not doubting that you heard it. Maybe someone did. Maybe someone at the table can correct me on whether this became a theme from the witness testimony we had on Bill C-332, but it's introducing an element to us.

I want to just clarify one point. You mentioned, Ms. Levman, that this would have to be a pattern. There's nothing in my reading of this legislation that suggests the pattern of behaviour has to include multiples of these elements.

Your testimony was that a pattern is at least twice, so my reading of this bill—and I'm going to call it a new bill, Bill G-2—is that “Everyone commits an offence who engages in a pattern”—which means two or more—“of conduct referred to in subsection (2)” and “being reckless as to whether that pattern could cause their intimate partner to believe that the intimate partner’s safety is threatened” and a bunch of terms in there that could be broadly interpreted.... If we then go to the items of conduct referred to in proposed subsection 264.01(2), they include, if we go all the way down, proposed subparagraph 264.01(2)(c)(vii), for example. I'll use this one because it's the one Mr. Fortin was talking about, but I could use others from this list. It reads, “threatening to die by suicide”.

That tells me that if someone threatens twice to kill themselves, maybe because they're in a fight with their spouse or intimate partner and they're arguing back and forth over something—it could be anything.... Let's say the person says, “Well, I'm just going to kill myself and end this”, and then a couple of weeks later there's a fight over something different and they say it again. The testimony we've heard today is that by doing twice, it's a pattern. It's a pattern of non-criminal behaviour, because that's what we're talking about here. We're not talking about criminal behaviour. We're talking about non-criminal behaviour that, by virtue of it being a pattern and falling under this legislation, is now criminal behaviour because this is in the Criminal Code. Through their doing these non-criminal things in a pattern, we, with this bill, are criminalizing them, which means we have to be very careful.

In the Criminal Code, there are criminal thresholds around evidence and the things we choose to include, as Canadians, as criminal. There are then a bunch of items in here that, per your testimony, are not criminal. Threatening to kill yourself is not criminal. By including it in this list, we are criminalizing it in the context of coercive control. We're making that decision without hearing any testimony about it.

You mentioned that the scenario I described would not be criminal because it would have to involve some of the others, but to be clear, my reading of this is that nowhere in the legislation does it say you have to do any multiples of these things. It could be the same offence, for example, around finances, access to health services or threatening to die by suicide. The same offence—a pattern of that—could be captured under controlling behaviour. We don't have to have multiples.

Is that correct? Nowhere in the bill does it say it has to be more than one of these things.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Chair, I have a problem with that. We all understand that we're creating new law. But this is not a civil matter. We're talking about convicting someone of an indictable offence and sending them to prison.

I was prepared to vote in favour of Bill C‑332. We've heard a lot of testimony about individuals who try to wrongly control their partner. I find these behaviours appalling, and I think they should be punished by the Criminal Code.

That said, the list being introduced here is different from what was in Bill C‑332. I feel like I'm repeating a bit of what our colleague, Mr. Moore, was saying earlier, and I don't want to speak for no reason. However, paragraph 264.01(2)(c) says “engaging in any other conduct — including conduct listed in any of the following subparagraphs”. Those provisions will be used to determine whether a situation exists that must be penalized. The list that follows this provision is so long that an individual who tells their partner that they'll commit suicide if the partner doesn't go on vacation with them, for example, could be charged with attempting to control that person and be sent to prison.

We've already heard from a number of expert witnesses, but if they came back to talk to us about this element, they might be able to convince me. I'm among those who are convinced that controlling and coercive behaviour is senseless and is a problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps everyone here is convinced of that. However, I'm very concerned about the list in this new wording. We have a very important decision to make here. We're changing criminal law and creating new offences. Our role is to legislate. In that sense, we must be prudent, but I feel that we really aren't being prudent.

I believe in the good faith of today's witnesses and of the government, of course, but I'm very concerned when I see this kind of wording and I don't have the opportunity to find out more from the experts who work with victims of controlling and coercive behaviour and with perpetrators every day. We have to look at both sides. We have be prudent and diligent. Right now, I feel we're rushing things, and I cannot condone that.

Nobody has been able to give me a single example in which a person could be convicted of controlling and coercive behaviour because they threatened to commit suicide or self-harm.

If no such example comes to mind as we're creating this legislation, then what will the courts end up doing with it? It's not reasonable for us to proceed like this.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Chair, the more I listen, the more frustrating this whole process is, and I'll tell you why.

G-2 is not an amendment to this bill. G-2 is an entirely new bill.

Backing up a bit, in April 2021, this committee agreed that the government should act on controlling and coercive behaviour, including in the Criminal Code. MP Collins, an NDP member, and Mr. Garrison brought forward Bill C-332. We have had three days of witness testimony on Bill C-332. Members of this committee took hours of time to develop amendments to Bill C-332, including us. We have an amendment to increase from two years to five years the time period whereby someone could reflect upon a relationship and achieve a conviction under this legislation. That was based on testimony we heard on Bill C-332.

We have not heard one moment of testimony on G-2. We haven't had the ability to have a witness appear and say, “I agree with clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4; I don't agree with clause 5.” G-2 has never been put to them.

When you look at Bill C-332 and G-2, the amendment is longer than the bill itself. The bill is fewer than three pages and the amendment is three full pages. Mr. Fortin is, rightly, trying to reformulate amendments on the fly, as all of us are, based on what is before us. That's not the way we're supposed to proceed. We have one amendment that wipes out all of our other amendments and wipes out all the consideration we heard on this bill.

For my part, I will be voting against G-2. I'm going to vote in favour of Mr. Fortin's amendment once we figure out that it should only apply to non-criminal actions. It's taking us forever to get there because of how this whole process is unfolding. I think that if the government wanted to bring in their own bill, they should have brought it in. Then we could have heard expert witnesses on that bill instead of bringing in their bill through an amendment to a private member's bill that we've spent all this time considering.

For example, with amendment G-2, based on the testimony I'm hearing from our witnesses—and this is not a reflection at all on our witnesses; they're here to present what the government amendment is and are doing a fantastic job of it—a pattern of behaviour or conduct can be two times. Based on the testimony we've heard, a number of items in this are non-criminal in nature. My interpretation of this is that if someone in a relationship does something twice that is non-criminal, if proof of fear is not required and if that person is the vulnerable individual in a relationship, then we can have criminal action.

It's so easy to contemplate scenarios under here where the threat of criminal action or a criminal charge could be brought. I think Ms. Gladu mentioned one. I see this all the time in relationships. One person says, “I'm not taking my medicine,” and the other says, “The doctor prescribed you this heart medicine; we're not leaving the house until you take your medicine.” The first person says, “Well, I'm tired of this. I'm tired of the way this has been going. I'm not taking my heart medicine.” The other person says, “Well, we're not going anywhere until you take your pills.” If you think that doesn't happen a million times over in Canada, it does. The evidence we have here might be that this wouldn't be captured, but that's exactly what Mr. Fortin's amendment is trying to do: to say that's reasonable.

We understand what we're trying to get to. We're trying to get to the person who says, “I won't give you your medicine unless you do something.” That's coercive. That's threatening. We heard testimony today that proof of fear is not required.

That same person could then say, “You know what? If you keep pushing me to take my heart medicine, I'm going to end it all. I'm going to jump in front of a bus. I'm going to threaten suicide.” That's prescribed in here too. Is that a criminal act? Who's the vulnerable person? Is it the one who needs his heart medicine and is threatening suicide? Are they both vulnerable?

I raise that as just one real-life scenario that we were unable to hear any expert testimony on. There was a tremendous number of really great witnesses who came forward on Bill C-332, but they didn't come forward on G-2. Normally, at this committee, amendments are very direct and focused, but this is a complete rewrite.

I'll be opposing G-2 in favour of the language that was less prescriptive. We heard testimony about whether to be more prescriptive and use examples or to be less prescriptive. We have language in here and have a bill that are the result of a study that this committee did and unanimously passed in 2021.

I applaud any effort to improve the bill, but to ask us right now, on the fly, to come up with amendments to a totally rewritten bill that we've heard no testimony on...I reject it. Our committee should not proceed in this fashion.

It's for those reasons that I will be opposing G-2 in favour of the current reading of Bill C-332. That will further enable us to have some of the amendments that are focused on Bill C-332 considered. According to what you've said, Madam Chair, if G-2 passes, then most of our BQ, Liberal and Conservative amendments go out the window.

At this point in the meeting, I thought we'd be done. I really did. Based on this bill and the support for Bill C-332, I thought we'd be done, but in order to do our job, we need to keep going the way we're going and parse out each one of these elements.

I'm going to be voting against G-2. I would urge my colleagues around the table to do that so we can get on with our consideration of Bill C-332.

If the government wants to bring in a new bill on coercive and controlling behaviour later, it is welcome to do that. It's had three years to do that. At this moment in this committee, when we have less than an hour left, this isn't the time for us to draft a bill, which is what we're doing right now. We're drafting a bill out of thin air.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

The problem is that I can't submit it to you in writing, because I just got it this morning.

However, it's identical to the wording in amendment BQ‑1. It amends line 7 of clause 1 on page 1. Proposed subsection 264.01(1) in amendment G‑2, which repeats the beginning of the wording proposed in Bill C‑332, says: “Everyone commits an offence who engages in a pattern of conduct”. In amendment BQ‑1, I'm proposing that the words “without reasonable cause” be inserted after “Everyone commits an offence who”.

After consulting our knowledgeable analysts, I would point out that it should actually be inserted after the words “commits an offence who”, as in amendment BQ‑1. The text would therefore read as follows: “Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause, engages in a pattern of conduct”.

The English version would say:

Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause,

Then it's “repeatedly” and the rest of the paragraph.

In French, after “quiconque se livre”, we would insert “sans motif raisonnable”, and the rest of the text would remain the same.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Yes, I can imagine. I'd be surprised if anyone told me that the people around the table had nothing planned for the weekend and that everyone was waiting for the government's amendment so they could work on it all weekend.

That said, we had prepared a number of amendments. I understand that my NDP colleague is going to work with the government on amendment G-2, so maybe I'm wasting my breath. Again, it's somewhat disappointing to think that we did all this work for nothing. I wish I'd known that in advance. Anyway, I don't know if we can incorporate the changes proposed in amendments BQ-1 and BQ-6, which go together, into amendment G-2.

In the current text of the bill, proposed subclause 264.01(1) begins: “Everyone commits an offence who…engages in”, after which amendment BQ-1 proposes to add “without reasonable cause”, to the acts that are listed in the rest of the wording. I'm talking here about the version without the changes proposed in amendment G-2. Can we incorporate this proposal into amendment G-2? It would be in the same place. I think that would be appropriate.

Amendment BQ-6 proposes to delete a passage from the current version of the bill. The provision begins at line 25 on page 2 and provides an exception in cases where “the accused was acting in the best interests of the person”. However, we've heard from witnesses that this can be a bit of an issue. What is considered to be a person's best interests can vary from one individual to another. This wording strikes me as problematic in terms of how the courts might interpret it, or at the very least, how the accused might interpret it. In fact, any defendant could say that he acted in what he considered to be the victim's best interests. In such a case, one could question the mens rea and end up acquitting the person on the basis that he believed he was acting in the victim's “best interests”.

That is why we believe this provision should be removed and instead the words “without reasonable cause” should be added to proposed subclause 264.01(1). In this way, the wording would indicate that anyone who engages without reasonable cause in all of the specified behaviours is committing an offence. In this case, if an accused says he had reasonable cause, the courts can assess this fact more generally and objectively. Let's take a situation where the accused individual acknowledges having acted in a controlling and coercive manner, for example by preventing their spouse from going to such and such a place or doing something, but says that they did so because it was really reasonable to do so in the circumstances. That's different from saying they thought it was reasonable. The court, objectively, will judge whether or not there was an element of reasonableness in the actions taken.

It seems to me that this wording would be more respectful of all the situations we're trying to cover. This is new law. Everyone has probably behaved in a controlling and coercive way in their lives, particularly towards their children, and reasonably thought it was necessary to do so. In this case, I think the behaviours in question were often unreasonable. We're tackling the problem. For my part, I fully agree with Bill C‑332. I agree with all the arguments that our colleague Ms. Collins presented to us in committee and that our colleague Mr. Garrison also expressed many times in a previous Parliament. Parliament does indeed have to tackle this problem, but I still think we need to proceed cautiously. I think it would be more prudent to state that the actions must have been taken without reasonable cause. That way, if, for whatever reason, the court finds that, in a given situation, the accused acted reasonably, he could be acquitted and not sent to prison for 10 years.

This is the nature of amendment BQ-1. I understand that it is not yet under consideration, since it comes after amendment G-2, which we are discussing at the moment. I mention it, however, from the perspective that we're about to throw everything else in the trash.

First, I'd like to know if the witnesses agree with my interpretation or if I've been mistaken in some way. If the witnesses tell us that it would be wise to do what I propose, is it possible to present a subamendment? I don't know how it could be done. I'll leave the practical matters to you to decide, Mr. Clerk and Madam Chair.

I'd like Ms. Levman and Ms. Wiltsie‑Brown to comment on the element of reasonableness, that is, inserting “without reasonable cause” in proposed subclause 264.01(1). The new subclause would thus read, “Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable cause, repeatedly” engages in the acts that are mentioned.

That was a long question, and I apologize, but I think the explanations were necessary.