Thanks, Chair. I'd like to thank both witnesses for coming out.
Mr. Kurland, I liked your entry there. It was very short but to the point.
I was in law enforcement for a number of years, and some of the cases I came across with immigrants, and even some cases with Canadians, used the defence of provocation. Many people who have committed murder have tried to seek a conviction of manslaughter because unless they used a firearm there is really no limit on the penalty.
They argue the victim's conduct provoked them to lose self-control and kill. Currently, any conduct by the victim, including insults or other forms of offensive behaviour, can be used as a defence, but the proposed amendment would limit the defence of provocation so that lawful conduct by the victim, which might be perceived by the accused as insulting or whatever, cannot be used. Only conduct by the victim that amounts to a relatively serious criminal offence could be argued.
I wonder if you could comment to us on this important provision. Do you think it's fair that honour-based issues be perceived and tried using the defence of provocation? Thank you, sir.