Okay.
I want to get at a bit of a tension that we're looking at here. For reverse onus, if you read the reverse onus provision, it really should be such that a person who breaches generally should be detained, absent the accused showing cause why they shouldn't be detained. In other words, the accused must show a justification for release. Is that correct?
If you look at the wording of section 515(6), provisions under section 524 or I think it's section 512.3, on all of those provisions it appears that Parliament's intention was to create a burden—and a high burden at that—for release in the reverse onus.
Would you agree with that?