These are very interesting discussions, and they give an idea of what is going to happen before the courts. I'll continue sort of along the same lines.
As for establishing criteria, the question was asked of Minister Nicholson last Tuesday. We wanted to know whether this wouldn't cause some confusion in the minds of lawyers and whether legal arguments would be raised. Although we know that it's specific and that it isn't a comprehensive list, we can wonder whether by enacting these rules, the legislator—us—wouldn't create what I would call "an impact of factor prioritization".
In this context, I'd like to ask another question. I'm concerned about the battered woman syndrome defence. The bill states:
b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were no other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
This is a new provision, and it's a little bit of a concern to me. I'm wondering if we are going to attach primary importance to this. If a woman tells us about all the violence she has experienced in her surroundings, are we going to tell her that, since she lives in a city, she has access to shelters for battered women and that, therefore, she could have taken other measures to deal with the situation?
I'm also wondering whether the Canadian Bar Association would recommend that we replace the words "the size, age and gender of the parties to the incident" with "the physical capabilities of the parties". I'm curious to know why you think it is restrictive to say "the size, age and gender of the parties to the incident" and to replace that with "the physical capabilities of the parties". I don't find it clearer necessarily.
Lastly, I'd like to ask Ms. Pate and the representative of the Canadian Bar Association what they think about the battered woman syndrome defence as part of the government's proposed amendments.