Let me stop you right there. There can be a number of reasons why bail is granted less frequently. Maybe we are talking about people charged under section 469 of the Criminal Code who are not eligible for bail, or because, under subsection 515(10), the judge is convinced that these people are going to destroy evidence, that they will not appear for their trial, or that they represent a security threat.
These three types of offences, for which remand is not possible, say nothing about firearms or offences committed with firearms. This is why the government's logic is extremely difficult to follow in this bill. On the one hand, you tell us that fewer and fewer crimes are committed with firearms, and for those that are, we do not know how a judge will rule on granting bail. But at the same time, we are being asked to extend reverse onus.
Do you realize our situation when it comes to thoroughness and the ability to do our jobs in a serious way?
I have no wish to embarrass you, and you know that my diplomacy skills are legendary. But the government's bill is not supported by any statistical reality. Show me one page of your presentation that could lead us to conclude that the government's case for extending reverse onus when firearms are involved is well-founded. Is there one statistic that could in any way give credibility to the government's bill?