Adopt the mixed subjective-objective test for the defence of property with respect to the accused’s belief that force is needed and that the degree of force used was necessary.

Require that the defence of property through violence be “reasonable”, but not also “necessary” and “proportionate”.

Require that the defence of property be dependant on defence of the person or Aboriginal lands, such that the use of deadly force could only be justified in such circumstances.

Engage in an equality-based analysis of the defence of provocation that examines the broader implications of the defence beyond the results in reported cases.

Abolish provocation at the same time that the mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment for murder is abolished.

Remove “victim provocation” as a factor in mitigation of sentence.

Delete the phrase "in the heat of passion" and substitute language that identifies a temporal link between the alleged provocation and the accused’s response.

Replace the phrase “wrongful act or insult” with “unlawful act”, employing an equality-based understanding of insults that encompasses the implicit threat posed by racist insults and other taunting.

Retain the "ordinary person" test for provocation.

Retain the “suddenness” requirement for the accused’s reaction to the alleged provocation.

Do not create a formal bar on the provocation defence for "spouses", but enact one instead for male violence against women and children and for killings inspired by alleged gay advances or “homosexual panic”.

Qualify the ordinary person test such that the person is one who adheres to Charter, specifically equality values.

Do not restrict provocation to those who fail self-defence only by reason of their use of excessive force.

Create a legal mechanism that would repudiate discriminatory sentencing patterns and practices, and that would create the potential for public accountability and legal challenge of such sentences.