Certainly, you've hit the nail on the head. In the first instance, we added eight serious offences for which we say that when they're committed with a firearm there should be a reverse onus. But you quite correctly point out that there is another category, and what we're saying is that in any indictable offence in which a firearm or another regulated weapon is used, if the person accused of committing the offence did so while they were already under a prohibition order, the reverse onus should apply to them. It seems to me that's common sense. If the individual is already prohibited or is under a prohibition order and we find that they're being accused of a crime for which they're under that prohibition order, wouldn't it make sense to have that individual demonstrate to the court why they should be released?
So it certainly is a broader category and it captures more offences. But I think it's perfectly reasonable under the circumstances that we ask that individual to show why he or she should be released. Again, I think it expands the areas of a reverse onus for bail within that, but it's certainly consistent with the present legislation and it's certainly consistent with what we talked about in the last election with Canadians.