Vote Yes
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (defence of person)
The bill clarifies and simplifies self-defence in the home, reducing legal uncertainty and potential procedural burden in clear-cut unlawful entry cases. However, careful drafting and guidance are needed to protect public safety and avoid misuse in edge cases.
What evidence does the government have that creating a presumption of valid self-defence for all unlawful entries will not increase wrongful or avoidable killings, and how will outcomes be monitored and reported to Parliament?
Does the phrase "they deem reasonably necessary" risk shifting s.34 toward a subjective standard, and will the Minister clarify in statute or guidance that proportionality and objective reasonableness still govern the use of lethal force?
What safeguards ensure this presumption does not shield harm against intoxicated, disoriented, or mentally ill individuals who mistakenly enter a dwelling, and how will Crown attorneys be directed to rebut the presumption in such cases?
Primarily a criminal law change with uncertain macroeconomic effects; any prosperity impact via deterrence or safety is indirect and unproven.
Introduces clear presumptions that can streamline decisions for lawful occupants and prosecutors, reducing legal uncertainty and procedural friction in self-defence cases.
No direct link to productivity or international competitiveness.
No bearing on trade or export capacity.
Security of the home is valuable but the bill does not directly affect business investment or resource development.
Presumptions might reduce some court time, but could also increase violent incidents and complex investigations; net fiscal impact is unclear.
No tax measures are included.
A narrow criminal law change with limited economic scope; not a lever for broad-based prosperity.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email hi@buildcanada.com