We will do our best to answer that question. We also have not had a lot of time to reflect on it.
You will all know that a reverse onus is a departure from charter-protected rights to reasonable bail—not to be detained without just cause—so we're automatically into a space where charter rights come into play. That said, the Supreme Court has upheld reverse onuses in certain circumstances. I would point you to a departmental resource that is publicly available, Charterpedia. It contains a lot of useful information on this provision, section 11(e), the right to reasonable bail.
I think it's important in your deliberations on this to reflect on the purpose behind the proposed amendment and whether that purpose is linked to furthering the objectives of the bail system. Again, when we think about the objectives of the bail system, they are to manage risk posed by accused persons, having regard to the grounds for detention—those being to manage flight risk, for public safety reasons or to promote confidence in the administration of justice.
I think it would be important to understand the purpose behind the proposed amendment and whether the purpose of that amendment is linked to those enumerated grounds for detention. Where that link can be more closely established, I think that is where, based on the jurisprudence, an amendment of this nature would be less likely to run afoul of charter-protected rights.