I certainly agree with you there. There is indeed a lack of data. As the Canadian Bar Association said in the brief it submitted to your committee, why undertake an initiative that seeks to fill a void when we do not even know which void we are trying to fill? This is why I took the time to consult with colleagues whom I have known for years, and who come from all provinces of Canada. I told myself that perhaps it was only in Montreal that judges asked us what we had to say in cases like that, because our client had a firearm. It is not only in Montreal. I believe that other witnesses, including those from Toronto, told you the same thing.
In reality, a kind of de facto reverse onus already exists when a firearm is involved. The only times that I have seen bail granted when a firearm was involved were when a case showed a clear potential defence.
I will give you an example. A lady hears someone enter her house. Thinking that she is the victim of a break-in, she picks up a gun and fires. Now, the intruder was her ex-husband. He thinks that she tried to kill him; she claims that she was just trying to defend herself. The file shows that the person has a valid defence. In a case like that, bail is possible, and you do see such cases. But they are rare. In all other cases involving firearms, the likelihood of obtaining release on bail is very slim.