Thank you, Madam Chair.
Obviously, I won't reiterate the same arguments about my proposed subamendment. The more we talk about it, the more I think it makes sense to pass it. Instead, I'd like to pick up on Mr. Moore's comments.
The list of behaviours in proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c) includes “threatening to die by suicide or to self-harm”. That's subparagraph vii. This means that if a person told their partner they wanted to commit suicide or were engaging in self-harm, and their partner believed their safety was threatened, then that would be a crime. For example, if I believe that my safety is threatened because my spouse is threatening to commit suicide, that becomes a crime. I'm having a hard time following the logic. I'm not a doctor, but I suspect that someone who's threatening to commit suicide or is being self-destructive needs the help of a doctor or a psychologist. That person doesn't need to be told that they could go to jail for 10 years.
I don't imagine that's your intent, but that's what's written, and I have a problem with that. That's one of the problems I raised initially.
If I understand correctly, my Conservative colleagues agree that this is a totally new bill. I know that my Liberal and NDP colleagues worked on it for several weeks, maybe even months. Personally, I read the new wording this morning, and parts of it bother me.
For example, this part is about an individual threatening to their partner to commit suicide or self-harm, which I understand to be cutting one's skin, self-flagellating, or whatever. From what I understand, if the individual's partner believes that their safety is in danger, the individual could be sent to prison.
I have a hard time understanding the logic here. Can you give me some examples or explain it to me more clearly?