First of all, I think you want to be satisfied as parliamentarians, with the greatest respect, that there's a need. There's anecdotal evidence all over the place. I can give you great anecdotes that some other people may not agree with. But where's the hard evidence that there's a problem with the existing bill situation with people charged with firearms offences? When you say we're going to keep these people in and we're going to protect the public, you've jumped a long way, because you may keep people in who, at the end of the day, are proven to be innocent or indeed innocent of something. What you have when the case comes into the system is a picture, but by the time the trial comes or by the time the preliminary comes, that picture always changes significantly.
I'm not saying that guns may not be a problem in this country. Quite frankly, I'm from Toronto and I may have a different view of guns than someone from Saskatchewan or New Brunswick on our council. The bottom line is that the Criminal Code is there. The tertiary ground covers exactly what you are talking about, protecting the public and adding public confidence in the administration of justice. It's already in the Criminal Code.
That's why I say to you—forget about reverse onus—you already have to deal with the tertiary ground. Is what happens practically on the ground that justices start with the first ground, then go to the second ground, and then are supposed to go to the third ground? No. What happens is that you go to the third ground, the tertiary ground, the public. When an offence takes place in a milieu, for instance, like Toronto after Boxing Day, nobody's going to get out, because the justices are going to reflect the environment and the public's concern. When there are threats of terrorism, we're going to react to that.
But our job here is to say, wait a minute, we have to hang on to these basic principles, and then ask, are we shocking the basic principles to cover situational events? If you had evidence before you that people were abusing the bail system, especially people charged with firearms offences, you wouldn't want to hear any witnesses. It would be obvious.
With great respect—Sorry.