Once again, I repeat that the clause cannot be read in isolation. Clause 34 contains provisions (a), (b) and (c). Adding this provides some information, but immediately after, clause (2) says the following:
“in determining whether the act committed is reasonable”. I'm referring to subsection 34(1)—I guess—if I'm following the Criminal Code.
Yes, it's a perception of the person, but it still needs to follow after that too. What are we trying to do here?
Do we want to support the notion of self-defence to make things clearer for the courts or do we want to complicate it to make it less accessible? If we knew what the intention was, that would help. In my view, we need to opt for clarity.
The example Ms. Findlay gave earlier comes to mind, as does a report you might hear on the radio of a woman killing her husband. From the outside, it may come off as a cold-blooded crime and appear to be completely unreasonable, but it may have been completely reasonable from her perspective. Clause 34(2) sets out the criteria that the court must assess, the nature of the force or threat, the size of the parties and so forth. Say the woman is six foot seven and her husband is four foot eight; that will be taken into account.
I don't understand the government's concern over this clarification. The perception of the accused has to be mentioned somewhere, even though it must not be the sole or most important consideration. The goal is not to create a free-for-all and allow profiling, for instance, where someone assaults a person simply because they don't like them and feels it is reasonable. That is not all what I am trying to do. I am trying to make it logical. I thought that was the gist of our conversation on Tuesday. That is why we are proposing this clarification, with the full knowledge that clause (2) specifies
whether the act committed is reasonable. It's not just one test. It's two tests.