No, it's not, for this simple reason. The natural inclination when dealing with mentally disordered persons who have committed an offence is to presume that they're dangerous. The courts have recognized that. There are lots of studies. The public perceives it that way.
The reason codification of “least onerous” and “least restrictive” is important is that it's a statutory reminder to the review board to not forget that this person shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. By taking that out and going back to saying public safety is paramount, it essentially takes away that precautionary measure and refocuses them on stereotyping mentally ill people as dangerous. That's the problem.