Yes, I do think there are charter risks, and I probably wasn't explicit in my response on that point. We know, with existing reverse onuses that have been upheld, that they have been linked to furthering the purposes of the bail system. As I said, the bail system and just cause for detention are anchored in those three grounds for detention. Evidence would then be necessary to demonstrate, for foreign nationals accused of committing certain offences, that there is a clear nexus with that fact, with flight risk, with public safety and with confidence in the administration of justice. Absent that evidence, the risks become much more attenuated.
I would just add one other point for awareness. If I understand the motion correctly, for a number of the grounds for inadmissibility, which were discussed already—security, organized crime, etc.—there are existing reverse onuses that address that behaviour in a different way when a person is charged with those specific offences. Somebody charged with a terrorism offence is subject to a reverse onus. You already have that availability, much like I explained to Mr. Housefather, with the situation where the person is not ordinarily a resident in Canada.