I tried to give the example of when the original paragraph 515(10)(c) came down. It had just the “maintain confidence in the administration of justice”. The difficulty was that confidence in that administration depended on, quite frankly, the point of view of the person looking at it--judge, police officer, crown attorney, defence lawyer, or defendant. There was that difficulty in trying to get a focus on it.
It was subsequently amended to actually give focus to it, and that passed constitutional muster. It's for the same reason I say that when you look at paragraph 515(10)(c) and its amendments, you'll see that they're all focused. That focus will give specificity and will point out to the courts why Parliament feels a reverse onus is appropriate in those circumstances. They will also say that, looking at our recent history, it's probably justifiable.