I see. That's helpful, because I took earlier comments to state that “reasonable grounds to believe” was above “a balance of probabilities”. I think that's very important. I know this sounds very nuanced and like we're just hammering at something, but the degree to which somebody must believe is very important for the purposes of this amendment; it really is. We're talking about “I suspect an offence might have happened” versus “I believe it has”. If it goes from a hunch to “reasonable grounds to suspect”, “reasonable grounds to believe” and “a balance of probabilities”, to me, that's a very important point.
When I consider that, and especially when I consider the higher threshold and the issue that was brought up by professors Geist and Diab, for instance, about being worried about section 8 being engaged here—especially if you're looking at a section 1 analysis and thinking about whether we have crafted this as narrowly as possible on the proportionality test—I'm not as uncomfortable with a “reasonable grounds to believe” threshold. It's not that much higher than “reasonable grounds to suspect”. It's higher, but still below “a balance of probabilities”. To me, that's very important.
Do either of you want to comment on that? Feel free. I hope I'm not talking you or myself into circles.
Is dinner ready yet?