I agree with Mr. Harris in relation to some of what he said. I think he's right that judges do interpret every word, and I think the words are significant in this particular case.
I listened to Mr. Jackson's testimony as well, twice, and bluntly, I was not persuaded. There's somewhere that we, as legislators, have to draw the line. I think the section that is reflected in the government's own words is good, very good. I believe, bluntly, that the least restrictive method is utilized in either--I can't remember exactly, I was trying to think of where--the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Young Offenders Act, or bail reviews, or, indeed, conditional sentences. I know that the amount of case law that has been generated by those words, in relation to “least restrictive” is tremendous. It has been ten years since I practised, so I don't remember exactly where I found that, but I do remember that those words utilized in other situations are tremendous.
I bluntly think the line should be drawn somewhere else. So I will respectfully disagree with my colleague Mr. Harris. I think the government's wording is good in the circumstances, and “least restrictive” I do not believe is appropriate in these particular circumstances.