I also have very little time. However, I do wish to tell you before beginning how much I appreciated the brief that the ministers of Justice from Alberta and Nova Scotia sent us. I do however note that the Alberta Department of Justice wandered off topic somewhat, which is to say they dealt with other issues. The Nova Scotia brief remained more faithful to the subject. It is obvious that this brief was written by professionals who know the subject well and who have suggestions to make. I read it and thought about it a great deal, and I feel the need to reread it and think about it again.
I was also very impressed by Mr. Justice Nunn's conclusions. I will not say any more, because it is not the role of lawyers to judge judges. That could be dangerous, don't you think? I very much admire your reasoning. And in fact, I would like to ask you my first question.
In your recommendation 20, you suggest adding a provision to clause 3 that would establish the principles of the act. However, the amendments that have been proposed by the government do not constitute an addition, but rather a replacement. Your objective was to keep the first paragraph of clause 3, while adding what you state in your recommendation 20 to it. You want to add the principle. It is true that in what follows, there are other references to rehabilitation and reintegration programs. However, we can see that the text has been somewhat cleaned up. Now, reintegration is no longer being recommended, but being promoted. The government is therefore, from the outset, making a change that you would not like to see, it seems to me.
Am I right to believe that?