I am still processing what is in this bill. As a result, in order to fulfill our obligation as His Majesty's loyal opposition, we should have the right to hear from officials fulsomely before we have to submit amendments. Otherwise, we are essentially going to a glorified clause-by-clause because, in that case, we're going to hear from officials after amendments are in, which we would normally do in a clause-by-clause setting anyway. We're almost postponing the unavoidable. We're not really following a proper process in that.
I reiterate that there has been substantial questioning on this bill, and dare I say, from some people, substantial opposition. We heard today that a lot of people are really in favour of this bill. We have a group that is quite in favour of the bill. We have a group that is quite opposed to the bill. Our job is to try to find some middle ground that puts bad people behind bars and ensures that privacy and charter rights are protected. I think everybody around this table would want to see that. How do we do that when we have amendments that are due before we hear from officials? To me, it is eminently reasonable that we would hear from officials before amendments. I don't understand why we wouldn't do it.
For instance, let's look at part 1, “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus “reasonable grounds to believe”. We heard about the lower threshold from Commissioner Carrique. The only time we actually talked about reasonable grounds to suspect versus reasonable grounds to believe was when I asked the question.
My recollection of reasonable grounds to believe is that a peace officer personally or subjectively believes that an offence has been committed—not suspects—and that the belief is objectively reasonable. That is reasonable grounds to believe, or it was five years ago when I was still practising law.