None of this is politics for me, okay. This is a professional discussion, and I take exception to what is happening in this committee right now.
First of all, residency and citizenship is a very important consideration at bail, because we're looking at flight risk. On the distinction that Mr. Taylor is making with respect to a class of people being Canadian citizens or non-Canadian citizens, that differentiation is made at bail court very often already.
That's to your point, Mr. Housefather.
I see Mr. Taylor is nodding in agreement. Thank you. He knows what's coming next.
I very much take exception to your answer to Ms. Lattanzio's question. She asked if there's a charter concern with respect to what Mr. Lawton is bringing forward, and you said yes, but your concern relates to the general concern in the bill, which is reverse onus offences. All of the reverse onus offences that you're expanding here are subject to the same constitutional concern. That has to be clearly understood.
Except, when we're talking about the seriousness of offences and the ability to survive charter scrutiny, what Mr. Lawton is proposing is a more serious class of offences, in fact, the most serious class of offences—treason and organized crime—in that those are more likely to survive charter scrutiny than anything else in this bill. That's a differentiation that Mr. Taylor did not make. All of this is obviously subject to charter concerns, but, if anything, this one would be less, in my respectful submission.
I ask that we remain intellectually consistent and honest about how we would apply the law here as we analyze this bill.