What is the test for s. 1 of the Criminal Code of Canada's Attorney General's Statement of Rights?

When McLachlin C.J. and Major J., said, in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, at para. 25 (dissenting on other grounds) that, “the proper question at this stage of the analysis is whether the Attorney General has asserted a pressing and substantial objective” (emphasis in original), they were not saying that the principles I have just identified should be forgotten and the s. 1 analysis is to be based solely on the government’s articulation of the objective. They were making the point that in judging whether a purpose is pressing and substantial, evidence is not required, and courts may consider the identified objective using common sense alone to determine if it is pressing and substantial.