Good morning, and thank you for coming to join us today.
You know that we are debating Bill C-35 in a climate where crimes committed with firearms as well as the crime rate in general are going down. Of course, I am skipping over the reality of the street gangs in some large urban centres, above all Toronto and Vancouver, and we should not be afraid to say Montreal too. I do not want to be complacent, and I would be rightly criticized if I were.
But I am a little taken aback by your evidence. We were looking at two factors. First, reverse onus, that already exists at the judicial release or release on bail stages, does not seem to be based on a specific number of cases. It would add to the list of offences where reverse onus would apply, that is, cases where the accused and not the Crown would bear the burden of proof.
In your testimony, you said one thing that shocked me a little, and I would like you to give me some more details about it. You seem to be saying that when a case involving firearms comes before a judge, or a justice of the peace in Quebec, a kind of reverse onus already exists. The practice seems to have been alive and well before legislators made the decision to write it into law. Could you explain that? I assume that you are basing your remarks on those of the lawyers who are members of your association.