Yes, and I regret I didn't have a chance to ask our witnesses a question about this. Proposed subsection 380.3(5) is saying that in every case a judge must give reasons for not making a restitution order—in every case, even where there isn't a request for a restitution order, even when the prosecution isn't looking for one.
It struck me as odd that we would impose on the judiciary an obligation to give reasons when in a particular case neither the prosecution nor the victims have requested, or wanted to request, a restitution order. That seems to me to be overdoing it.
What my amendment provides is that it's only when a victim seeks restitution and the court decides not to make a restitution order that the court has to give reasons. That would seem to be more appropriate, keeping in mind that, further up in the section, the victims must be asked if they wish to make a restitution request and the prosecutor is involved in that. There's a whole procedure set up in this section.
If all of that is set up to request of the victims whether or not they want restitution—and as I read the section, the court can decide even on its own to impose a restitution order—then I do not see the need to require the court to give reasons for not making a restitution order if nobody wants one, including the court, or the victim and the prosecutor.
My amendment is there to remove that 100% obligation of the court to give reasons every time it doesn't make a restitution order.