When I look at (d.1) and (d.2) in relation to the suggested changes, (d.1) says, “is reasonable for the purposes of investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada”. You use the quote “reasonable grounds to believe”. It seems as though there is very little to choose between the two.
It's the same thing with your second bullet point where you also talk about “reasonable grounds to believe”. I noticed you referred to a second quote that you would change to “has been, is being or is about to be committed”.
In (d.2) it says, “is likely to be committed” in terms of the way the legislation goes.
Maybe specifically refer to what the difference is between them.