Madam Speaker, I do think those are considerations that are important because different issues can play out in different contexts in different places. Therefore, the notion of what constitutes reasonableness may vary given the context, both geographical and otherwise, as well as what may determine proportionality, these being the two main criteria in this regard.
I will take this opportunity to address another factor that may pose a concern, which is (h), which reads:
whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.
The question is whether “knew was lawful” is enough or should it be “knew or ought to have known”.
I can imagine a situation with an undercover police officer and the person saying that he or she did not know the action was lawful and therefore he or she was justified in assaulting the officer in self-defence. Again, this may be another factor we may want to clarify. Therefore, should “including whether the person identified his or her lawful authority” be added, or is “knew or ought to have known” be sufficient?
The question points out, and I have used this particular consideration or factor by way of response, that there are a number of issues that will be best addressed in committee.
As the Supreme Court said, the contextual principle is crucial with regard to the interpretation and application of legislation and would it apply with regard to that geographical context and in relation to that contextual principle and the application of the notion of reasonableness and proportionality.