That may be. Even if that is the right way to read it, there are two things to bear in mind. First of all, when there's a difference between the French and English text it raises a complex question of bilingual statutory interpretation and how the difference should be sorted out.
There are a number of principles governing that exercise. The primary one is the quest for a common meaning, but subordinate to that there are others, including the principle of reading the text as favourably as possible towards the rights of the accused. In this case that would mean reading it more broadly to favour a broader version of the defence.
My fundamental concern is that the factors of necessity and proportionality should be highlighted, and the factor of the defender's knowledge that the force is lawful should actually not count at all. That is to say, if the defender knows that the force being used is lawful, then the defender ought not to resist the force. One could still include these other factors in the bill, but I think it would have to be made clear that they were subordinate to the main lines of the defence of self-defence.
I hope I'm answering your question.