That's a difficult question to answer. Maybe I can answer it in a slightly different way. That specific proposal is something that we're looking at in collaboration with the provinces and territories, as you would expect.
Section 95 is a broad offence. For those of you who will remember the newer decision, there was another Supreme Court decision, MacDonald, that involved an otherwise law-abiding gun owner who stored their prohibited or restricted firearm in a second residence. Their licence authorized them to store it in their primary residence, but they stored it in their second residence.
In constructing a reverse onus for an offence of that nature you have to take into consideration the types of situations that would be captured and whether those situations, which may or may not pose public safety risks, warrant a reverse onus.
On the charter question, I would say two things.
Justice Canada's website includes a dedicated resource on all articles of the charter. It includes detailed information on the bail provisions, including on the reverse onus. I think what a court would want to see in terms of assessing the charter viability of a reverse onus in that space is if it is linked to grounds of detention. Is there a just cause associated with it?
As you say, reverse onuses have not been struck in the bail regime by the Supreme Court of Canada.