We're having trouble finding good examples. I consider all of you to be experts in this area, and there are even a few legal experts on the committee, but I don't think anyone has been able to come up with examples of situations where this defence could be used.
There is a principle of interpretation. It is said that legislators are never supposed to speak for nothing and that the legislation we pass must serve a useful purpose.
Are we putting ourselves in a situation where section 33.1 could be struck down because it's impossible to use that defence? Could section 33.1 be considered to be without legal force? Is there not a fear to that effect?