Thank you. I'd like to continue in that vein, if I could.
I can understand, as Mr. Falk pointed out, how unlikely it would be that in the 31 years of this requirement's existence a minister would stand up and actually table something to say that it is inconsistent with the charter.
What the Schmidt case seems to be showing us—and I take it that we still have to wait for the court's decision—is that the standard is just much too low. My opinion is that the standard is ridiculously low. Apparently it's whether it is “manifestly unconstitutional and could not be defended by credible arguments before a court.”
Whether there's a good chance that a provision would be found unconstitutional, more likely than not, as the chair said, that's the standard that I would argue needs to be there, rather than some 10% or 20%. I know you don't quantify it, but that's what Mr. Schmidt asserted and that's what's before the courts in that decision.
It seems to me that the standard is very low, and if one looks at the amount of time and money that we have spent on the federal government's losing cases about the charter in the last few years, I would assert to you that the proof is in the pudding.