I think the best way to answer that is to say that if ever this provision comes up under a prosecution, the court will consider or the accused will advance whatever defence against the charge they believe they can.
The key element, as the minister was saying, is the willfulness or the intent to commit the offence. The defence without lawful excuse, essentially the reference to subsection 429(2), is to indicate that it's not a new law. That requirement or that ability of the accused to demonstrate that he had some lawful excuse for doing the act has been with us for some time.
I was trying to think of an example in which this might be applicable in conjunction with an assault on a law enforcement animal. I came up with one that may or may not be a reasonable hypothetical, but I'll leave it with you.
If one had a situation in which a law enforcement animal was used more as a weapon by the police officer in an inappropriate fashion to attack an individual, and let's add to that the fact that it was not a lawful arrest that was being attempted, then I would think that person would have the ability to defend himself—it would be self defence—against this animal, against this assault that was being perpetrated with the animal. At trial, he would have a reasonable excuse for doing that if he was actually charged with having wounded or injured the law enforcement animal.