If I'm reading it correctly, I don't think the bill prevents the battered woman from raising the defence in that situation. It does, however, ask the fact-finder to consider whether the use of force was imminent, and whether there were other potential means, so that's going to be a factor to be considered along with the others.
In the leading case on this topic, the Lavallee decision from 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the phrase “reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm” in subsection 34(2) as it now stands. The crown, the prosecution in that case, tried to persuade the court that this meant an imminent threat, and the court said it didn't have to be imminent but asks whether it was a reasonable threat. It could be coming along later.
I don't think this section excludes that, so it would still be possible to make that kind of argument in those types of cases. My suggested reframing of the section doesn't exclude it either, because the question would still be whether it was necessary to do what was done, whether it was a proportionate response in light of the situation the person was in. What the Supreme Court emphasized in Lavallee itself was the role of the expert witness's testimony in explaining to the jury the situation this person was in, which otherwise looked like a very unsympathetic case for self-defence. I don't think either this or my version would exclude that.