There's no question that it brought back what was the old regime prior to what we have in the Criminal Code now, where the judge finds dangerousness and then determines whether it's an indeterminate or a definite sentence. The difficulty is that that doesn't change the issue of the reverse onus. If you're presumed to be dangerous after the three strikes, so to speak, the onus is still on the accused to show why they may not get an indeterminate sentence.
So I don't think that changes the argument in terms of constitutionality. Certainly it provides for potentially what one might think is a lesser penalty, but the test is still the same. It's a reverse onus on the accused on the balance of probabilities.