Reverse onus has never meant that people who should otherwise get out won't get out. I have to say that at the outset. If somebody is a worthy candidate for bail, all things being equal, the onus does not particularly influence the outcome. So I don't think that as a general rule I would be too concerned about it.
Where I might encourage the legislators to look is at the reverse onuses that presently exist, for example, trafficking in a narcotic. That was a reverse onus from the time we had the Narcotic Control Act, well before the present legislation, which has many different levels of trafficking, depending on the drug. I question whether, as a practical matter, it makes sense to have a reverse onus in trafficking in marijuana but no reverse onus up until now in robbery with a firearm. You know, it's one of those disconnects that existed.
So there is some value in going back to the legislation as it presently exists and asking if there is still justification for it.