That is actually one of the ways in which the language on that particular issue will be changed by Bill C-26. The multitude of provisions now in effect limit the responsive actions of an accused to the necessary use of force, that is, no more force than necessary. But it is all premised on the use of force. One of the things that Bill C-26 does is recognize that there might be other evasive actions that a person would take in a threatening circumstance. Those actions could potentially be criminal in ways that don't involve the application of force on another person. The wording in Bill C-26 does talk about whether the act that is committed is reasonable in the circumstances.
The language of use of force would be replaced with more general language. It would permit, for instance, breaking into a house to escape someone. It's likely that actions like that could be used as a defence under the current law, under the common-law defence of necessity. Self-defence works as a subset of the necessity defence. If the purpose is to protect yourself from a threat that another person is launching against you, it's more appropriate to conceptualize that conduct as self-defence as opposed to the defence of necessity. This accounts for the expansion of the language.