That's an excellent question. Perhaps it gives me an opportunity to explain this part of the legislation, which is probably the most modern part of it in the sense that it is targeted at capturing the more subtle forms of coercive and controlling conduct that we know abusers engage in.
What I would stress is that none of these lists in proposed subparagraphs 264.01(2)(c)(i) to (vii) can form part of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct as defined in proposed subsection 264.01(2) unless they meet the safety test, let's call it, which has just been read out. I won't read it out again, but what it means is that any example of this conduct must also cause a reasonable person in the victim's circumstances to believe their safety is threatened before it can form part of the offence itself.
There's actually a mechanism built into proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c) to ensure that somebody who threatens suicide...because that could be, as has been very rightly pointed out, a sign of mental health problems and not a sign of a coercive controller.
What we know from the evidence, unfortunately, because we did quite an extensive engagement process, led by Justice Canada, with our provincial and territorial partners in 2023.... We heard from a range of groups, and we heard from survivors themselves and those who represent them that this is a big problem in the context of coercive control. I would also note for the committee, in case it helps them in considering why this is here, that it also happened in the Bailey McCourt case.