The reason I focused on the vulnerability was precisely the same line of thinking. That is to say, the constitutional right is part of the law of the land, the constitutional right to reasonable bail, not to be deprived without just cause. It should not be able to be altered, left, right, and centre, by statutes that do not have constitutional status without an amendment to the Constitution. That's where the fear is, I think, that there's an idea that maybe we can do incremental changes, as if they're not important. When those incremental changes encompass what they called in Pearson the small fry or the person, as you say, it is possible that someone who has very little criminal responsibility compared to certain other crimes, where the crime is relatively minor compared to certain others, will be caught in the net of this change. Yes, it is possible. That's precisely what we wish to avoid, and that's precisely where defence counsel would be attacking it as being arbitrary. It would be in a case or cases like that.
The majority in Pearson had said the small fry were caught by this law, but they'd have no trouble showing they deserve bail. But they only said that because the decision was that the provisions in Pearson were not arbitrary because of the very particular context of drug trafficking. They were very careful to state this was not a decision they were going to approve for every type of reverse onus change one could think of.