Fortunately, the Criminal Code already has specific provisions for offences that involve firearms. That is actually codified in the bail provisions.
I know that one of the proposals—I think, at large, this may have been alluded to in the premiers' letter more generally—is whether or not there should be another reverse onus, for example, on possession of a firearm. Without specifically coming down one way or another as to whether or not there should be a reverse onus on that specific offence, we address in our submission the fact that the circumstances of possession offences can actually vary. There can be cases in which it's fairly clear cut that someone may be responsible, certainly, for possession of a firearm. There are others in which there is a much more tenuous connection between the person charged and the actual item. The person may simply be an occupant in a vehicle, for example. The person may simply be an occupant of a household.
Generally speaking, I think it's fair to say that any time there are accused persons who come before the court and are charged with crimes of violence, crimes involving offences in which there has been use of a firearm, it is very much an uphill battle for that person to be released.
I would just strongly encourage this committee not to be swayed too much by anecdotal evidence that has been suggested, I think, in prior meetings. Generally speaking, if you were to go into bail courts in Toronto, for example—Toronto and Peel are very, very busy bail courts—you would see that, day in and day out, experienced judicial officers are very well aware of the principles of bail. They are very well aware of the need to balance public safety and confidence in the administration of justice. By and large, they carry out that responsibility very well.