The MPs are smiling, but I do want to take a moment to thank the officials. I know it can be difficult. We have moments of levity among members, probably because it is now June, and this is the silly season, when it can be very difficult. A lot of people are working 15-hour days, yourselves included. We do thank you for putting on a brave face. I know you're not allowed to show the levity that sometimes we are. We really do appreciate you for being here.
I'm not going to take a super long time here—famous last words—because I am going to ask for a washroom break when I'm done—full disclosure. This is something that was actually brought up by professors Geist and Diab. I'm not sure in your preparation.... I know that you all do robust preparation. Professors Geist and Diab appeared on the same panel. Can I ask, did anybody review their testimony on the panel? They both talked about the grounds to suspect versus the grounds to believe. Is this triggering for anybody? One of the things that both of them said, as I recall—I'm pretty sure it was Professor Diab who definitely said it—was that a lower threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect generally would invite scrutiny under section 8. There's always scrutiny under section 8. What I mean by scrutiny under section 8 is perhaps a declaration of unconstitutionality.
We can sit here all day and all night, but if a law is declared unconstitutional at the end of the day as having breached section 8 and not having been saved by section 1, all this time we spend is in vain, really. One piece of litigation works its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which invariably these types of cases do, and then there's an issue there. I want to ask about this. I would like to ask about the officials' point of view. My recollection is that the professor said that a lower threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect would breach section 8 of the charter.
The government doesn't believe so. I've looked at the charter statement, and I don't think that the charter statement really tells you a lot. It says this right is engaged, but we're kind of doing this. It doesn't say, a reasonable ground to suspect will not invite the court to strike this down, because this case and this case established this, and based on that we come to this conclusion. That's what I'm looking for from a legal statement. I think we would all want that from a legal statement. I would like for somebody to address this question. The professor said the reasonable grounds to suspect threshold offends section 8. What do you all say to that?