I understand what my colleague is saying, but I think we need to consider clause 34 in its entirety. Clause 34(1) reads “ [a] person is not guilty of an offence if [...]”.
Then comes a series of provisions: 34(1)(a), 34(1)(b) and 34(1)(c). Our proposed amendment to clause 34(1)(a) would establish that the person “believe [...]”. Department officials were very clear about the fact that it was as perceived by the person in question. It is important to strike the right balance between the objective and subjective criteria. The element of reasonableness is already set out in clause 34(1)(c).
The person must believe. How can reasonable grounds be established from a person's perception? They may have a certain perception of the situation, but they still have to act on it. What does it boil down to? The person must act reasonably. Therefore, clause 34(1)(c) stays as is. I don't see why you are so concerned; the clause has to be understood as a whole.
Although some witnesses preferred to see no change, that approach would not address what the courts were asking for. Judges told us that a change was warranted. That is the very purpose of Bill C-26, for that matter.
At the same time, it is important to find the right balance between the subjective and objective criteria. To my mind, the reasonableness component is contained in clause 34(1)(c) of the bill. Clause 34(1)(a) addresses the perception of the person in question. By adding another requirement, whereby the perception must be reasonable, we may be imposing a heavier burden than the circumstances warrant.