That's fair enough. I'm trying to work this through, and I get that once you have the subscriber demand and the subscriber information, you're only theoretically one step further ahead once you get that authorization for the subscriber information. If I'm taking your point correctly, we're actually not that much further ahead in terms of determining whether there are now “reasonable grounds to believe” versus “reasonable grounds to suspect”.
Could you settle a debate between me and my colleague? I won't say who's on what side, but let's say proposed section 487.0121 is the section we're looking at. Let's say that a court says this offends section 8 of the charter—not the way it was carried out, but the legislation itself offends section 8. Would there then be a section 1 analysis of whether or not that is a reasonable limitation on the section 8 charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? In other words, do you perform the Oakes test on the legislation if it's found to infringe section 8?