Here's a worse-case scenario for you, regarding THIS thread.
You're detained by Canadian constabulary -- something to the effect of "assault with a deadly weapon" . . . For the sake of argument here let's say that the "weapon" in question is a tire-iron. It's not a firearm, and it's not "bladed." Let's say prosecuting counsel decides to subpoena your computer records. Prosecutors do this sort of thing as a matter of SOP.
So, the authorities search files for "blades, weapons, self-defense, knives, etc . . . " and they come up with THIS thread. Prosecution is going to submit in discovery that you're discussing knives and self-defense law in Canada -- for the purpose of finding an EDC knife.
Prosecution is going to argue this thread "goes to state of mind." That you discussed knives for self-defense, EDC, and there's even a post (this one) that considers what the Prosecution might do if you're arrested on a "weapons charge" for using a tire-iron to inflict injury.
My point here being that you can tip-toe around the wording of a statute, but you cannot tip-toe around "state of mind." The prosecution will contend that you demonstrated the "state of mind" to procure a knife for defense -- despite statements later in the thread that you're not shopping for a "self-defense" knife.
Prosecuting attorneys are nasty bastards, like a dog on a bone.
I'm not an attorney, but I used to teach attorneys how to argue in written briefs.
Stay safe out there!