I wasn't going to ask questions, but I guess my law school background prevents me from staying silent.
I want to challenge you, Madame Schurman, on the argument you're making about the charter liability of this bill. We have I think pretty conclusive evidence from a number of different lawyers and defence groups that this type of reverse onus practice is in fact going on now--and I think you're confirming that--right across the country.
That reverse onus, though, to my knowledge is generally, without many exceptions, being restricted to those crimes that in fact have involved guns. From that I conclude that we have a systemic reverse onus that's been built in by the judiciary in the country.
So if all of those assumptions are correct, why do the judges get to have a systemic reverse onus--and presumably, from your arguments, a breach of the charter--and the legislature is not allowed to do that?