It was obvious at our first committee meeting that the minister didn't really understand this provision regarding provocation. Limiting the provoking act under this partial defence to only criminal offences that carry a maximum sentence of at least five years in prison doesn't achieve the goal that the government is claiming that it is achieving.
It took only a little bit of research by my office to figure this out, that many non-violent property offences are included in this new definition. It does not limit provocation to serious violent offences as the minister claimed. In fact, he had to be corrected on this by his own officials.
Our amendment would clarify that the provoking act would need to be a criminal offence or some other form of discrimination, that it would deprive a normal person of control. This is an important change as it would serve to ensure that those who face extreme and continuing discrimination may avail themselves of the defence, for example, a Jewish person who encounters incredible anti-Semitism or a gay person who is subjected to very homophobic remarks.
That is the rationale for our proposed amendment.