We're starting well. We'll have to agree to disagree.
We think the wording is proper. I think I understand what you're trying to do. It may be a matter of semantics, but within the framework of the act we feel that this wording is the best.
As you've characterized it there, it would characterize the defences of a justification to having acted. Basically, if you meet the criteria of proposed paragraphs 34(1)(a), (b) and (c), it's not an offence.
We're happy with the wording, and I think you said you're not striking out proposed subsections 34(1)(2) and 34(1)(3). That's what you were referring to at the start.