Let's say it's a variation on Johnson.
The problem related to these reversals is not the fact that at the sentencing stage a person is not presumed innocent anymore. I read from testimony given before the committee assuring you that this was constitutional because the presumption of innocence was gone and the person had been found guilty. That's not where the problem lies.
The problem is related to sections 9 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which deal with arbitrary detention, and the fact that each person has the right to life, liberty and security, and cannot be deprived thereof, unless it is for reasons of fundamental justice. Those are your two problems; this is where the bill will fail to stand up to a constitutional challenge.
To withstand a constitutional challenge, it will have to be shown that the objective is important, the change is necessary, that the current law is lacking, and that the new law is the least intrusive option which infringes the least on a person's rights. This will not be possible, and the burden of proof will be borne by the Crown and government lawyers, because the party which wants—