Thank you.
I fully understand that my colleague Mr. Garrison thinks that the debate is straying from the subamendment. However, the subamendment that I proposed is to ensure that the offence can only be committed if it's committed without reasonable cause. From there, I am interested in everything in the bill, because it's by understanding the scope of the bill that we can determine whether or not it's important to add a concept of reasonable cause.
As I was saying in my previous question, according to the text of the bill proposed in amendment G‑2, psychological safety will be taken into consideration. If it's very broad, as I suspect it is, it's all the more important to set limits on the offence by saying that it must have been committed without reasonable cause.
With all due respect to Mr. Garrison, who wants to see my subamendment defeated as soon as possible, I would like us to make sure that we fully understand the scope of this new bill and then determine whether it's prudent to add this guideline at the beginning, that is to say that an offence is committed only if it was committed without reasonable cause.