Okay.
I listened with some curiosity to your comments regarding lawful access. I think we'll be hearing from police officers this afternoon, and we certainly will when we go to my city of Edmonton on Monday. Of course, they've been lobbying for the types of things that you're concerned about.
You made a very salient point on your concern about changing the threshold from “reasonable grounds to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect”. Without getting into a metaphysical argument, I'm not sure I understand the practical distinction.
I understand that “believe” is a higher standard of perceived knowledge than “suspect”, but I'd like to hear your views, either of you. You're a lawyer, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Trudell, you're a practising criminal lawyer of some experience.
In practical, everyday consideration, what is the difference, when search warrants are applied for, between “grounds to believe” and grounds to suspect”?